Has your helmet saved your life poll

[david k]

Fine. I'm happy with it too, but seeing as it isn't based on anything, why not invent a more interesting reason? An angel told you to wear it, perhaps, or you have a Chicken Licken complex?

Alternative response number 2.

In fact I've only just realised I don't even own a helmet and my 'bike' is in fact a smart car. I'm off to the smart car forum to find somebody new to argue with

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Ha! You don't trust Dan's stats for some reason, and you think there might be "better" ones, but you can't say where they might be! How terribly convenient. Someone can wake me up when you've found them.

No i actually wanted an answer as to wether you buy into these stats or just use them as a quotable source?

I could pick at it all day but lets just say a few for now:

.There are FAR more pedestrians than cyclists. In fact every cyclist is also a pedestrian!
.Stats are limited to distance travelled. Is time not a good alternative to this given that the two activities cover vastly different distances.

A more "relevant" stat (couldn't resist) would be the following:

Take the total number of pedestrians and the number of pedestrian deaths. Calculate what % of pedestrians have been killed.
Take the total number of cyclists and the number of cyclist deaths. Calculate what % of cyclists have been killed.

These figures would not be so flattering to your argument.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Fine. I'm happy with it too, but seeing as it isn't based on anything, why not invent a more interesting reason? An angel told you to wear it, perhaps, or you have a Chicken Licken complex?

So you are happy for someone to wear a helmet as long as they admit that they are either silly to do so or are aware it's as much use as a chocolate fireguard?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Sleepy time. Ciao.

 

[david k]

good night all

 

[lukesdad]

If he was as conflicted as you imagine, he'd welcome compulsion for the peace of mind...

With such a small proportion of the membership putting forward a view he can t be sure of anything, and here lies his dilema, compulsion by default. TBH the way these threads evolve the usual suspects are not doing themselves any favours.

 

[StuartG]

Calculate what % of cyclists have been killed.

Would that be when they were cycling or not cycling? Think about it

I actually agree with you that KSI/million km may not be the best measure of risk. The classic example is airline travel which has a very good ratio 'cos you fly a long way. Most crashes occur on take off and landing so that flight distance is actually irrelevant. Its the five miles round an airport that counts and that is a risk of another magnitude or two. In that case a more realistic measure is risk per trip.

The bottom line is are you more likely to die while cycling or walking around? We spend more time walking around and most falls are in the home. Oh and if you are not exercising you can have a tougher helmet where lightness and ventilation holes are not a design constraint. So logically I should really be thinking about it. Except I'm not. See I'm irrational too ...

 

[Spartak]

Came off on ice 2 years ago.
Landed on my head thankfully I was wearing my helmet which cracked in 3 places !
Spent a few hours in casualty being checked out.

All I can remember was the noise when I hit the deck !!!

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Would that be when they were cycling or not cycling? Think about it

I actually agree with you that KSI/million km may not be the best measure of risk. The classic example is airline travel which has a very good ratio 'cos you fly a long way. Most crashes occur on take off and landing so that flight distance is actually irrelevant. Its the five miles round an airport that counts and that is a risk of another magnitude or two. In that case a more realistic measure is risk per trip.

The bottom line is are you more likely to die while cycling or walking around? We spend more time walking around and most falls are in the home. Oh and if you are not exercising you can have a tougher helmet where lightness and ventilation holes are not a design constraint. So logically I should really be thinking about it. Except I'm not. See I'm irrational too ...

Obviously when they are cycling. A cyclist will only be termed so whilst on the bike. Otherwise they are termed pedestrians.

Far less time is spent on the bike. Time not spent on the bike will come under pedestrian. It's not hard to see how these statistics don't measure up.

Fact is, some on here are basing their argument against helmet use on "relevant" stats and labelling other evidence, not helpful to their argument, as "irrelevant".

David, for example, has been pushed to explain why he chooses to wear a helmet. Then a barrage of stats directed his way. You agree that these stats are not ideal. If you were pro helmet Stuart do you think you would have any problem picking them apart? Honestly.
Point being if you only argue against helmets, yet also see errors in your own argument, then you are being a little biased and/or possibly influenced by your own beliefs. You already said as much above "i should really be thinking about it. Except i'm not. See i'm irrational too".

I've no doubt the majority of us on here are irrational Stuart, where helmets are concerned. The 47 pages prior to this one would agree. I am no doubt biased toward my argument also. Problem is it has become a debate between the fans of two rival football teams. Neither willing to concede, rightly so, that their team is inferior.

 

[StuartG]

Pedro - you missed my point. You only die once. Something will get you in the end. I'm a cyclist but the chances of dying falling from my bike are very small with or without helmet.

Whereas the chances of me dying falling down the stairs are much greater. This could realistically be reduced if I wore a helmet. But I don't and neither do you. Its a risk we are both willing to take. Yet you have a problem with using what is unlikely to protect you from a lower risk to your life. Double Bammy.

 

[green1]

Came off on ice 2 years ago.
Landed on my head thankfully I was wearing my helmet which cracked in 3 places !
Spent a few hours in casualty being checked out.

All I can remember was the noise when I hit the deck !!!

If a helmet cracks without deformation it has catastrophically failed to the job it was 'designed' to do.

 

[Dan B]

No i actually wanted an answer as to wether you buy into these stats or just use them as a quotable source?

I could pick at it all day but lets just say a few for now:

.There are FAR more pedestrians than cyclists. In fact every cyclist is also a pedestrian!

So what? The statistics are per mile. The only effect on them of their being more pedestrians is that the number for pedestrian deaths may be more accurate, not that it'll be bigger or smaller

.Stats are limited to distance travelled. Is time not a good alternative to this given that the two activities cover vastly different distances.

Depends what you want to measure. If I want to know whether it's safer to walk to work or ride there, per mile is a better bet as I travel the same distance either way. If I want to know how to spend an hour of leisure time, per hour is better. To get per-hour times, if you need them, you could probably do worse than multiply the cycling stat by 3.5 or 4

But that's all a red herring. Given that you can expect to get killed, on average, once every 30 million miles of cycling - probably less often if you're a decent cyclist with some training or some traffic awareness or some miles under your belt - and that it's a long way from certain that wearing a cycle helmet will even save you from that if you *are* otherwise destined for a casket - why the obsession with helmets? I'd much rather change the odds of hitting the road in the first place

 

[Licramite]

Obviously when they are cycling. A cyclist will only be termed so whilst on the bike. Otherwise they are termed pedestrians.

Far less time is spent on the bike. Time not spent on the bike will come under pedestrian. It's not hard to see how these statistics don't measure up.

quote]

In that case very few cyclists are injured, as most are knocked off the bike before they hit the ground so are not cyclists ! - I,m not sure what they are as they are not walking either , - but they certainly ain't cycing

It was the same point in parachuting, - nearly all die on hitting the ground, but your not parachuting at that point are you !

simples

 

[Licramite]

DanB obviously thinks Wiggins and his trainer should get a bit more 'Training' as they clearly have poor cycle skills.
The other person in the crash equation clearly has nothing to do with it, - just read about the number of Ace pilots that were killed by other pilots doing stupid things in both world wars.

were as I agree with changing the odds of hitting the road, if we are as bad as pedestrians we are going to fall over, - at that point you want as much protection on your vital bits as you can. - cranium being the most vital.

 

[mickle]

No i actually wanted an answer as to wether you buy into these stats or just use them as a quotable source?

I could pick at it all day but lets just say a few for now:

.There are FAR more pedestrians than cyclists. In fact every cyclist is also a pedestrian!
.Stats are limited to distance travelled. Is time not a good alternative to this given that the two activities cover vastly different distances.

A more "relevant" stat (couldn't resist) would be the following:

Take the total number of pedestrians and the number of pedestrian deaths. Calculate what % of pedestrians have been killed.
Take the total number of cyclists and the number of cyclist deaths. Calculate what % of cyclists have been killed.

These figures would not be so flattering to your argument.

Did you read this yet?