How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[lukesdad]

There are a lot of Christians and Muslims in the world too - and they can't all be right (and may all be wrong).

So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that very large numbers of people are mistaken in their belief that cycling helmets serve any useful purpose.

Not irrational necessarily, just misinformed.

Its also not beyond the realms of possibilty that people are convinced by mis leading data.

 

[lukesdad]

Risk assesment can work the opposite way to, in that hang on Im wearing a helmet here I should take more care.

 

[david k]

its been said that cyclists wearing helmets makes people wary because it makes them think cycling is dangerous.

This is therefore a contradiction to risk compensation (taking less care) when cycling. How can a helmet make people think it is more dangerous but take less care? Surely its unreasonable to consider it can do both?

 

[Norm]

its been said that cyclists wearing helmets makes people wary because it makes them think cycling is dangerous.

This is therefore a contradiction to risk compensation (taking less care) when cycling. How can a helmet make people think it is more dangerous but take less care? Surely its unreasonable to consider it can do both?

Not necessarily, because it's not necessarily the same person thinking that cycling is dangerous that thinks they can be more careless when wearing a helmet.

Imagine, for instance, a parent taking their teenaged child to school and close-passing a commuting cyclist who is wearing a helmet.

The parent may think that cycling is dangerous on busy roads, because cars (just like the one they are driving - school run parents don't always get irony) "have to" pass close to the cyclist to overtake. The worried parent then makes the teenager wear a helmet when cycling.

The teenager now has a "safety device" that their parents tell them they need to wear, and they are already over-flowing with invulnerability, so they may consider themselves to be even more immune to any danger when wearing a lid.

 

[david k]

if its not necessarily the case then we have to accept that risk compensation is not there for all

 

[benb]

Yes benb, ive had it drummed into me on here, there is so much conflicting evidence its not possible to form a judgement from it, and i dont accept the risk compensation thing.

IMO its irrational to accept it as convincing evidence when it has been shown to have many conflicting and variable factors. therefore it has not changed my view

Then I'm forced to conclude that you're being wilfully ignorant, as the evidence really isn't conflicting. There is no evidence that helmets are effective at reducing serious head injuries and fatalities.

And risk compensation is a real phenomena, whether you accept it or not.

 

[Norm]

if its not necessarily the case then we have to accept that risk compensation is not there for all

The scenario I gave showed was only one possibility. However, I don't think that it is present to the same extent in every person under every circumstance but I also don't think that means it can be discounted in any way.

After all, if only 1% of drivers will pass a cyclist closer when they are wearing a helmet, that is still a couple of people every time I ride, and that's more times than I'll encounter situations where a helmet might be a benefit.

 

[lukesdad]

The scenario I gave showed was only one possibility. However, I don't think that it is present to the same extent in every person under every circumstance but I also don't think that means it can be discounted in any way.

After all, if only 1% of drivers will pass a cyclist closer when they are wearing a helmet, that is still a couple of people every time I ride, and that's more times than I'll encounter situations where a helmet might be a benefit.

See Norm this is the problem. That may well be the case where you live. In 40 miles a day that would be one a month where I live.

 

[Norm]

See Norm this is the problem. That may well be the case where you live. In 40 miles a day that would be one a month where I live.

I don't see that as a problem, it just proves, IMO, that different people meet different situations and emphasises the benefits of free choice.

I think we both agreed that we don't wear helmets on the roads anyway.

 

[lukesdad]

We are, but we do need to present a balanced debate don t you think ?

 

[Norm]

We are, but we do need to present a balanced debate don t you think ?

Abso-bloody-lutely, and I hope that I'm doing that with careful insertions of could and might and should.

(Other than my kids) I have no feelings about anyone else wearing or not wearing helmets, any more than I do gloves or glasses (although I think that the safety argument for those is more persuasive).

A long time ago, before I joined CC, a MTB'ing friend said that he'd got himself a helmet because I always wore mine off road and his missus had been nagging him. I felt pretty darned guilty there, even though I hadn't said a word to him about it.

And that was before my personal Damascene moment (as posted in your "did you change your mind because of the debates" thread) when I knew little or nothing about the respective arguments.

 

[ufkacbln]

ive been told i have to accept the data, regardless of it being flawed. as i dont accept it as accurate and have my own mind im judged to be irrational. There are many irrational people out there as i see a lot wearing helmets

Wrong - you have been asked to read, consider and then decide on the data, at which point you usualy declare that you don't don't need evidence to decide


As for beng able to assume a knowledge o the thought process behind the decision for all these people who wear helmets - that is impressive

 

[JonnyBlade]

Not very sarcastic

 

[theclaud]

Ooops didn t realise you visited this part of the forum

Always assume I am watching you. Kinda like a panopticon or one of Orwell's telescreens. And also assume I am on Mickle's side...

 

[lukesdad]

Always assume I am watching you. Kinda like a panopticon or one of Orwell's telescreens. And also assume I am on Mickle's side...

I ll bear it in mind for future reference