Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Crackle]

Wearing a helmet or not is vanishingly unlikely to make any difference to your risk of a head injury.

Except if you become a statistic and then your take on statistical likelihood becomes subtly different.

 

[StuartG]

Except if you become a statistic and then your take on statistical likelihood becomes subtly different.

Nice to know you are still with us Mr Bayes

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Only 130? Tsk. Still, that ought to be enough to understand the very helpful advice that has been offered throughout this thread.

You know the saying you can only p*ss with the **** you have??
Besides i have learned a lot from this thread. Nothing to do with cycling safely unfortunately.
Even with my limited IQ, i am able to apply risk assessment to my life and decide wether or not i should wear a helmet.
The very helpful advice on this thread relates to ALL pedestrians and ALL cyclists. If people could just understand that EVERYONE and EVERY situation is different. Vague statistics will not cover all basis.
Take my example:

I live in the country. I live in a small town. It is nice and quiet and safe.
Now if i walk about my town it will be most unlikely that i would be knocked over by traffic. There is not much of it. I have not fallen over drunk in many years, i am not a big drinker. Not much risk there either.
I am very fortunate to live in an amazing area for cycling with lots of back roads, climbs and fast descents. The main dangers, i have assessed, are rider error, mechanical failure (puncture, brakes etc) and other road users. The latter is nowhere near as common as a city or even large town. Still though you do get the odd bad driver threatening to knock you off on a narrow road.

So with a risk assessment i am able to ascertain that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is, for me, a good idea. I judge myself to be more at risk when cycling. I do not see any risk whilst walking.

This is my situation. Someone who lives in London may argue they are safer on their bike, and thats fine. If that is how they assess their situation. To me this is logical.
You cannot risk assess mass groups with stats and deduce the best option for individuals. To me this would be illogical.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

They may in a handful of limited situations help prevent an injury, but the odds of that happening are so remote to be not worth considering.

To you these odds may not be worth considering, to me they are. Hence the helmet on my head.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

The thing is, if the risk is similarly insignificant, which the figures do support, then you really don't need to bother with a helmet. If you don't feel you need one for walking, then I would submit that you don't need one for cycling.

I don't think people have claimed that a cycle helmet is useless: just that the risk of a head injury is tiny to start with; the subset of those head injuries that a helmet could potentially mitigate against is tinier still. Therefore it's no wonder that we don't see a significant protective effect of helmets in the data: any effect is so small as to be undetectable.

Wearing a helmet or not is vanishingly unlikely to make any difference to your risk of a head injury.

Again i think this is your pov. Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea.

 

[ufkacbln]

Goodnight all, I'm off to bed.

I'm tired and my head hurts, I'm not wearing a helmet, mmmm, is there a link?
Think I'll ask the wife to polish it, see if that helps ?

That is a line not only worthy of a sig line, but worthy of A carry on film!

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes
For the life of me, I can't understand how folks go helmet-less in this weather, after my short commute my helmet is all frosted up and it's a skateboard kind, very few ventilation slots.
I have been reading up on the links provided.
Interesting the one article (www.cycle helmets something) that says that at about speeds of 12.5 miles a helmet is useless.
Ah, found the article: http://www.risksense.org/2012/06/14/the-myth-of-the-bicycle-helmet/
This occurred to me: as a matter of fact I am not able to exceed 10 mph at any time.
So there are some chances a helmet would protect me in a fall.
There was another statistic quoted by Red Light in another thread (where is he, btw ) about cyclist taking more risks when wearing protective gear: the article though said this does not apply to women riders.
So, there you go, I'm a woman
I confess that I don't always wear my helmet: on hot days on a traffic free path I take it off.
Yes, there are still chances I could take a tumble, I'm taking those chances.
In town, in traffic, it goes back on, because I'm convinced there are lots more chances for me to fall off, and the helmet could help.
In my case, statistics seem to agree.

Totally missed by some, but if you go back a bit then you are fully supported

It is frosty, an increased risk and you are wearing a "rounder, smoother, safer" helmet and riding within the design limits

Absolutely the right thing to do, especially as this is a personal assessment that you are not trying to force on others

That is all that was ever suggested...... A reasoned informed decision

 

[ufkacbln]

Again i think this is your pov. Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea.

One really has to point out the the obvious flaw in this post....
A cyclist: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A pedestrian: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A Dog: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A kangaroo: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A goldfish: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A hamster: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A cockroach: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

An Elephant: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A child: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

a pensioner walking doen the road: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

One really has to point out the the obvious flaw in this post....
A cyclist: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A pedestrian: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A Dog: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A kangaroo: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A goldfish: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A hamster: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A cockroach: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

An Elephant: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

A child: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

a pensioner walking doen the road: Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea

There is no flaw. It simply states that cycle helmet use is down to POV.

 

[Drago]

Yet all those ones in millions who acquire head injuries in cars are just one of those things.

This all cuts both ways - compulsory airbags and seatbelts for bicycles will be the next thing we'll have to endure. And while you're bust dressing pedestrians like cyclists, and car drivers like motorcyclists, lets slip some 'road tax' in the cyclists direction, make everyone truly equal.

 

[ufkacbln]

There is no flaw. It simply states that cycle helmet use is down to POV.

So on the evidence you gave you agree that hamsters should wear helmets?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

So on the evidence you gave you agree that hamsters should wear helmets?

Ohhhhhhhhh! CUTE!
But he doesn't cycle, walk or drive?
He does, however, run around in circles

 

[ufkacbln]

Ohhhhhhhhh! CUTE!

He does, however, run around in circles

A bit like me then?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

A bit like me then?

It doesn't get any easier, you only get faster

 

[david k]

The thing is, if the risk is similarly insignificant, which the figures do support, then you really don't need to bother with a helmet. If you don't feel you need one for walking, then I would submit that you don't need one for cycling.

I don't think people have claimed that a cycle helmet is useless: just that the risk of a head injury is tiny to start with; the subset of those head injuries that a helmet could potentially mitigate against is tinier still. Therefore it's no wonder that we don't see a significant protective effect of helmets in the data: any effect is so small as to be undetectable.

Wearing a helmet or not is vanishingly unlikely to make any difference to your risk of a head injury.

I think you make your point very well benb. I see your views and respect them, however i dont see it quite like that when I make my choice prior to riding, i may be wrong in my decision but i think its right as i consider the risk greater when cycling. Hope i'm never in a position to prove myself right though!