Helmets stop people cycling

[StuartG]

Finally your argument: pedestrians don't wear helmets so why should we, is floored since you fail to grasp the concept that road users are more likely to meet cars than pedestrians (I don't feel that statement needs citation)

This may be true for Planet Zog. Sadly I live in London. The 2011 statistics here had five times as many pedestrians killed as cyclists. If you think helmets would help - its peds you want to target.

As for the cyclists deaths its instructive to examine cause of death. I'll wager it was mostly crushing injuries. Use or non-use of a helmet being pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Joey7415963]

I am sorry I failed to make myself clear. Your theory only makes sense if the outer shell is not compromised. That would hold the foam and produce the result you predict. That's why they can be useful in low impact collisions. However, as the skull is much stronger (by about a factor of ten) this is pretty much irrelevant in preventing skull damage.

If the helmets outer skin is breached which it will in any dangerous impact then the foam is not contained. Think about it - the foam will move in the path of least resistance. Away from the point of impact. Ooops!

As for evidence I note you mention WHO and BMA. But what about the RSS or the CSO?

That's naughty because they haven't published any comprehansive stats or come to any conclusions on the lifesaving capabilities of helmets. That's because the stats is incredibly hard to do and the results so far are inconclusive. Ask our chief statistician his professional opinion on the issue and you will be deafened by shuffling feet. The stats just do not underpin the claims made for helmets but its politically difficult to say boo.

I regularary read doctor's papers on helmet use (and other stuff). Bung in a students t-test and job done. Yes I exaggerate but there is good reason that their stats is no better than my brain surgery. There have been some published studies that are so inept as to really worry that medical peer review is working. If you are going to rely on expertise - do choose the right expert in the right field.

I'm not saying a helmet will protect you in a collision with a jumbo jet! But if you agree they aid in some collisions why wouldn't you wear one?

For your skull to be 10 times effective it would have to break to alleviate the force, this is how physics works!

I would sooner trust scientific journals than anything else (WHO and BMA included), you failed to mention the findings of the journals I cited.

Lastly when someone disagrees with you, rather than jump to the conclusion they don't understand what they are talking about and immediately take the offensive, "if the physics is too hard to understand" why not try to explain what you are saying. Matter of fact is helmets do work in the way that I proposed and you made it perfectly clear that you believed otherwise (which you are wrong for).

It's a shame that people jump down your throat when you propose an alternative opinion, for this reason I don't think this forum is for me and I believe you are doing a disservice to the cycling community in promoting an unwelcoming atmosphere.

 

[Joey7415963]

This may be true for Planet Zog. Sadly I live in London. The 2011 statistics here had five times as many pedestrians killed as cyclists. If you think helmets would help - its peds you want to target.

As for the cyclists deaths its instructive to examine cause of death. I'll wager it was mostly crushing injuries. Use or non-use of a helmet being pretty much irrelevant.

Oh and just because that's what happens in London doesn't mean you can apply the same rules to everywhere else

 

[green1]

Greater risk of a heavier impact whilst cycling

Bit like when that snowboarder died from slipping on the snow, the report said it would have been prevented had she of been wearing a helmet

Which means the report is not worth the paper it written on. A report should not speculate.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Honestly? I get called a wacko for wanting to wear a helmet.

Nice one!

Nobody has called you a wacko for wanting to wear a helmet, just the Billy Graham way you expect all of us to fall in line with what you seem to think is a great revalation (hint: it isn't).

You may want to have a wee search here before coming on all preachy and evangelical as if you're the first person to have ever come up with the notion. There's even a forum specifically called helmet and headphone debates, which should give you a tiny clue that you're not the first to have sprung the topic and that you're dealing with people with an awful lot of real world experience who have read the same papers and articles but have applied their own intellect and opinion, some in the same way, some in a different way to you. deal with it.

Re your post #39 you'll also find a range of personalities and typing styles on here, some more abrasive than others, you may not realise it, but you come across increasingly pushy and aggressively 'I'm right you're not', which is really not the most conducive way to introduce yourself to an established herd and instantly make friends. You've pretty much got what you've given.

Chill out, explore the site for a while and get to know it before diving in quite so dogmatically on THE MOST contentious possible topic on a bike forum and stop trying to mother the big boys and girls.

 

[green1]

"Helmets designed to handle major crash energy generally contain a layer of crushable foam. When you crash and hit a hard surface, the foam part of a helmet crushes,

Except they tend not to in cycling helmets where they tend to have no deformation and just crack (there are plenty of threads on this forum with pictures of helmets the have just cracked followed by claims that the helmet definitely 'saved' the wearer), if a helmet does this it has failed to do the job it was designed to do as fracturing absorbs virtually no energy.

For the sake of £6 Aldi helmet that's passed all the same British standards I don't see why you would take the risk.

The British Standard isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Joey7415963]

You claimed the WHO supported helmets. Prove it - put up or shut up!

With respect to the BMA, I know the BMA very well. I work in the NHS, my partner is a consultant physician at one of the UK's most renowned hospitals and I read the BMJ on a regular basis.



What article? It's a link to a web-site which review the evidence, authored by respected academics from around the world.

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/helmet_manual.pdf

Cycling towards health and safety. British Medical Association ISBN 0-19-286151-4.1992.

Also various references to the BMA promoting compulsory bike helmets.



Where's your proof?

*mod edit: Bad language removed.

 

[Joey7415963]

At shouldbeinbed

My I'm right wrong attitude sprung in retaliation to another's identical attitude.

 

[Joey7415963]

You're not very bright, are you? That's about motorcycle helmets - not bicycle helmets.

0/10 for comprehension.

Haha what a tard, read the whole thing it says the guidance is applicable to both!

-14/10 for. Comprehension!

 

[green1]

Haha what a tard, read the whole thing it says the guidance is applicable to both!

If a cycling helmet offered a level of protection approaching the level a motorcycle helmet does I would consider wearing one. But they don't so I don't wear one.

 

[Joey7415963]

WHO doesn't recommend the use of cycle helmets

In your own words "put up or shut up"

 

[StuartG]

Joey,

I am sorry if you are upset at the robust response to your posts. The nature of forums is that responses have to be short and concise if they have a chance of being read. This discriminates against taking time to be polite and going into all the nuances.

The points you have made have been made many times here before. As have the responses. The differences between pro-helmeteers and the skeptics are not new. Reg and I have gone into the claims over the years and come to our conclusions on the balance of evidence (or lack of it). YMMV.

But the issue here is understanding the whole picture before deciding. Forgive me if I say you are not making an effort to understand why we are skeptics. Are we really being just bloodyminded? Because until you understand that can you cannot make that balanced decision.

Darwin was a skeptical scientist. Don't take his name in vain if you wish to win friends and influence people. Remember the thread is about helmets discouraging cycling. If helmets really do save lives - then this still may be a wise payoff.

I will conclude by asking you whether even the most optimistic and unproven claims for the lifesaving capabilities of helmets exceeds the disbenefits of discouraging cycling?

 

[Joey7415963]

Joey,

I am sorry if you are upset at the robust response to your posts. The nature of forums is that responses have to be short and concise if they have a chance of being read. This discriminates against taking time to be polite and going into all the nuances.

The points you have made have been made many times here before. As have the responses. The differences between pro-helmeteers and the skeptics are not new. Reg and I have gone into the claims over the years and come to our conclusions on the balance of evidence (or lack of it). YMMV.

But the issue here is understanding the whole picture before deciding. Forgive me if I say you are not making an effort to understand why we are skeptics. Are we really being just bloodyminded? Because until you understand that can you cannot make that balanced decision.

Darwin was a skeptical scientist. Don't take his name in vain if you wish to win friends and influence people. Remember the thread is about helmets discouraging cycling. If helmets really do save lives - then this still may be a wise payoff.

I will conclude by asking you whether even the most optimistic and unproven claims for the lifesaving capabilities of helmets exceeds the disbenefits of discouraging cycling?

That is a good point to end on.

 

[Joey7415963]

"As mentioned in the Introduction, this manual is focused on how to increase helmet use among motorcycle users. The increasing use of motorized two-wheelers, and the high speed at which motorcycles can travel compared to bicycles, means that the primary audience of this manual will be those seeking to increase motorcycle helmet use. Nonetheless, it is assumed that much of the technical guidance that is provided in the text will be equally relevant, and can be applied easily, to those seeking to introduce a helmet programme for bicycle users."

Did you read that bit?

Where's your evidence?

 

[StuartG]

Does this mean you're not going to continue spouting bollocks then?

For once I agree with Joey and challenge you to say why its bollocks.