Helmet article on the BBC

[fimm]

Many apologies for starting another thread about h*lm*ts, but I thought people might be interested in this article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11110665
(and if it has already been posted somewhere I'm very, very, very sorry... )

 

[slowmotion]

This Department for Transport report studied all the evidence available and concluded that "the effectiveness of helmets in single-vehicle collisions was estimated to be 50%".

But the report's authors admit that "it should be remembered that there was no specific evidence to support these estimates".

 

[benb]

Sounds a bit like "helmets are effective because we really, really want them to be"

Seems to me like there's little conclusive evidence either way, so it should be down to personal choice.

I wear one, but I don't really know why, other than I need somewhere to mount my camera!

 

[PpPete]

Seems a blonde wig may be more effective.....

 

[StuartG]

You can't get much better analysis than on Radio 4's 'More or Less' (last Friday 1.30pm). The conclusion was that while there is some interesting research that shows helmets can both lower and increase risk there is no sound statistical evidence to really test these and show, on balance, which is the best strategy.

Which is what is evident in these hallowed forums where the proponents/detractors can't, when challenged, substantiate their claims with any scientific credibility.

Wear one if you want, don't if you don't but don't forget to always check the brakes, cables, headsets ... stuff that can really help you avoid crashes with no downside.

Bit of training and reading Cyclecraft will probably help. But I have no proof of that

 

[MartinC]

You can't get much better analysis than on Radio 4's 'More or Less' (last Friday 1.30pm). The conclusion was that while there is some interesting research that shows helmets can both lower and increase risk there is no sound statistical evidence to really test these and show, on balance, which is the best strategy.

Which is what is evident in these hallowed forums where the proponents/detractors can't, when challenged, substantiate their claims with any scientific credibility.

Wear one if you want, don't if you don't but don't forget to always check the brakes, cables, headsets ... stuff that can really help you avoid crashes with no downside.

Bit of training and reading Cyclecraft will probably help. But I have no proof of that

Stuart, I hope you realise that within the assumed rules of helmet debate your post makes you anti-helmet and a helmet detractor. So, be ready to substantiate your claim that no-one knows because I'm sure that someone will be along soon with an anecdote or some received wisdom.........................

 

[gaz]

It's a fair article to be honest. and it concludes that it is down to personal opinon.

 

[StuartG]

Stuart, I hope you realise that within the assumed rules of helmet debate your post makes you anti-helmet and a helmet detractor. So, be ready to substantiate your claim that no-one knows because I'm sure that someone will be along soon with an anecdote or some received wisdom.........................

That's up to them. Personally I too have a problem with people who have no doubt in their own position. It's a lot easier to kid yourself than anybody else ...

 

[decca234uk]

I've been cycling for over thirty years, most of that time without a helmet. I wear one most of the time now though I'm beginning to think I might revert to my woolley hat which is much more comfortable. It's all down to personal choice. I came off my bike when I hit some black ice on a back road last year, unusually I wasn't wearing a helmet and my body instinctively took the brunt of the fall followed by my arms, I scraped my nose but didn't bang my head. Wearing a helmet or not is a decision we have to make ourselves. trying to get unbiased data is difficult because everyone has an axe to grind. It's no coincidence that wearing cycle helmets is pushed aggressively in the USA where most cycle helmet manufactureres are based.