Helmets why doesn't everyone wear them?
- Thread starter Pikeman
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think the OP was referring to cyclists, and the vulnerabilities they faced by cycling without head protection? so why would we be looking for at your other listed examples needs to have head protection, sorry but these have no bearing on the topic.
A place for everything, and everything in its place...
I have. In Vancouver.
As a benchmark for assessing the comparative levels of risks we are prepared to take and whether any of them warrant interventions with safety equipment? You can of course do the assessment in a complete vacuum of evidence and comparative evidence but then you are likely to end up with something nonsensical e.g. deciding to walk rather than ride without a helmet which would be a decision that likely increased your risk of a head injury for the trip.
Yes I'm fully conversant with comparative levels of risk. But if were going to make comparisons (in terms of risk), then surely it should be like for like? how does a pedestrian on a footpath, or a car driver on the road in a steel shell, compare with a cyclists need for head protection whilst cycling at 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40mph?
Well you can rule out the 15,20,25,30, 35 or 40mph for cyclists as they are 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 16 times respectively the maximum impact design limit of a bicycle helmet anyway. But if we look just at serious injuries of cyclists on the road and pedestrians on the footpath going from A to B then the pedestrian has a 50% greater chance of a serious injury accident and a 30% greater chance it will involve a head injury. Cyclists on the other hand are more likely to have an arm or shoulder injury. And those figures are for each group doing the journey in the way that group would typically do it.
But were not advocating that pedestrians should wear head protection,
and of course they have a 50% greater chance of serious injury, there are more pedestrians (compared to cyclists)
, and they regularly swap between pedestrian and vehicle routes
. And they're more likely to be distracted by other things, such as phones, friends, shop displays etc.
, not to mention the vehicle drivers who are equally distracted and not paying attention to whats going on around them.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I need to preface this entry with a reminder that all generalisations are wrong. Very wrong.
Canadians are (all of them) lovely but strange. They are peaceful and kind, but can be shouty when their rules are threatened.
I used to frequent a Canadian military base in a town called Visoko, where the UN folk did clever petrol-for-goodwill deals with both sides in a local conflict. Visoko was on the front line, so deals were a good thing.
There was a blanket speed limit of 10 Km/h on the base, and if we went through at even 11 km/h we would get yelled at: "Hey Bud! Wurrz the faah?"
It was funny. We were not (in the accepted sense) speeding. But we got VERY shouted at.
Also (and I thought this was a cool side of the Canadian military) the officers used MTBs to get around base. Those were the early-ish days of MTBs and the VERY EARLY DAYS of officers being seen cycling round military bases.
Oddly, despite being a former British colony, the Canadians on that mission (the greatly esteemed 22nd) insisted on calling their regiment the 'Van Doozy Aime' and refused to speak English to me. I just spoke jolly loudly and slowly and waved my arms around. It seemed to work.
Sorry... what was this thread about?
I didn't reply to the OP, I replied to your unequivocal statement:
Now would you explain why a pedestrian head injury is somehow less traumatic, devastating or more acceptable to the level where they shouldn't be prevented?
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
Back to the Op -
I sometimes do but as a head warmer not as protection. About half the time I don't.
Plenty of meaningless anecdotes, but there is not, to my knowledge, any EVIDENCE that a cycle helmet has ever protected anyone from a serious injury any more than that it has worsened one. There are large scale studies which confirm this.
I fully support your right to wear a helmet. Do not presume to question mine to make the evidence based decision that I do not wish to wear one much of the time.
It's now got cold enough that I'm beginning to wear it again, come any warm days it'll be off again. The EVIDENCE says that it is giving me the same protection in both cases. Anecdotes are not evidence.
I sometimes do but as a head warmer not as protection. About half the time I don't.
Plenty of meaningless anecdotes, but there is not, to my knowledge, any EVIDENCE that a cycle helmet has ever protected anyone from a serious injury any more than that it has worsened one. There are large scale studies which confirm this.
I fully support your right to wear a helmet. Do not presume to question mine to make the evidence based decision that I do not wish to wear one much of the time.
It's now got cold enough that I'm beginning to wear it again, come any warm days it'll be off again. The EVIDENCE says that it is giving me the same protection in both cases. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Me - three times. What is your point in asking?
classic33
Leg End Member
I've two questions, both helmet related.
1. Because I sufferred a large amount of head injuries, when younger, it was advised that I should consider wearing one of the old style cycling helmets. Was I a fool for ignoring this "advice" & carrying on as normal. My arguments then are the same as now. Limited protection with no side or rearward protection.
2. When a helmet manufacturer prints, on the box, that injury may be caused by the correct use of the helmet, what does that say about the industry. Wear one & you might suffer injury/harm, don't wear one & you may suffer injury/harm
1. Because I sufferred a large amount of head injuries, when younger, it was advised that I should consider wearing one of the old style cycling helmets. Was I a fool for ignoring this "advice" & carrying on as normal. My arguments then are the same as now. Limited protection with no side or rearward protection.
2. When a helmet manufacturer prints, on the box, that injury may be caused by the correct use of the helmet, what does that say about the industry. Wear one & you might suffer injury/harm, don't wear one & you may suffer injury/harm
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
No rearward protection? My Poc lid, my Giro Xen both have excellent rear and lower side coverage.
Including my work helmets I now have 6, and on none of them does the packaging or literature advise that correct use of the helmet may cause injury.
Including my work helmets I now have 6, and on none of them does the packaging or literature advise that correct use of the helmet may cause injury.
I think, if you don't understand the difference between numbers and rates, that you should perhaps go away and do some reading up first.
POC are an interesting anomaly.
Firstly they comply with the smoother rounder safer ethos of preventing helmet induced injury with "snag points" and large ventilation ducts
They also pioneer "MIPS" (Scott are taking this up in new models as well) to further reduce rotational injury.
- Status
