How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Little yellow Brompton]

"all progress depends on the unreasonable man"?

"...a civilization cannot progress without criticism..." ?

 

[JonnyBlade]

"......some cannot post on here without facing aggression and ridicule......"

 

[Bicycle]

I come to the debate late so excuse me for asking what must have been explained before. I don't wear a helmet for comfort and aesthetic reasons yet I do think I perhaps should because it seems logical to assume that they will protect my head in the case of an accident. However now I come to rad about it it seems that there are a lot of people who think they do no good or at worst make cycling more dangerous.
Please can somebody explain, as if to a simple child, how a layer of protection can not protect the head, at least a little bit?

Just jumping in here... and going back to the OP.

Helmets are OK really. I sometimes wear one and it hasn't killed me yet. Not wearing it hasn't killed me either.

It's not as comfy as a cotton casquette or (in winter) a Cap Comforter, but it's OK. If you like that sort of thing.

There are dangers associated both with wearing and not wearing a helmet. They are grave.

The main danger in not wearing a helmet is that you might attract opprobium from 'Helmet Fascists' who think you are putting mankind at risk by not wearing one. They take themselves and their opinions very seriously.

The main danger in wearing a helmet and advocating the use of one is that you may attract opprobrium from an anti-helmet lobby who think mankind (or the UK legislature) is about to adopt laws forcing us all to wear helmets at all times. They have a fascination with quotable statistics.

On balance, the second mob are more tiresome than the first, but the best response to both is a confident smile and a quiet withdrawal from the area or discussion.

Both take themselves IMMENSELY seriously and are blithely unaware that they are the only ones who do.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[ufkacbln]

Just jumping in here... and going back to the OP.

Helmets are OK really. I sometimes wear one and it hasn't killed me yet. Not wearing it hasn't killed me either.

It's not as comfy as a cotton casquette or (in winter) a Cap Comforter, but it's OK. If you like that sort of thing.

There are dangers associated both with wearing and not wearing a helmet. They are grave.

The main danger in not wearing a helmet is that you might attract opprobium from 'Helmet Fascists' who think you are putting mankind at risk by not wearing one. They take themselves and their opinions very seriously.

The main danger in wearing a helmet and advocating the use of one is that you may attract opprobrium from an anti-helmet lobby who think mankind (or the UK legislature) is about to adopt laws forcing us all to wear helmets at all times. They have a fascination with quotable statistics.

On balance, the second mob are more tiresome than the first, but the best response to both is a confident smile and a quiet withdrawal from the area or discussion.

Both take themselves IMMENSELY seriously and are blithely unaware that they are the only ones who do.

I hope this is helpful.

Again you have assumed there are only two options........ not the case.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Again you have assumed there are only two options........ not the case.

and mixing two categeories

" in wearing a helmet and advocating the use of one"

I have no problem with those that wear a helmet or those that advocate the use of one, or even those that wear and use one. The only problem I have is any of those groups that ask me to wear one without any proof that they work.

 

[lukesdad]

and mixing two categeories

" in wearing a helmet and advocating the use of one"

I have no problem with those that wear a helmet or those that advocate the use of one, or even those that wear and use one. The only problem I have is any of those groups that ask me to wear one without any proof that they work.

Has anybody here asked you to wear one ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Has anybody here asked you to wear one ?

We have had such missives as people should be barred from training if they don't wear one, and that it shuld be compulsory. We have also the frequent "wear a helmet or die a horrible death" postings

If not direct, then certainly the implication that one should be worn

 

[Red Light]

Has anybody here asked you to wear one ?

For example:

The moral of this tale is "Please wear your helmets."

 

[ufkacbln]

Here
Here

Etc Etc Etc

Ah the Gem Assist twisting of the stats and the wonderful egg pack....

Note how the numbers quoted are again for ALL injuries and ALL head injuries then implying that these are all cyclists

Then there version of the "experiment"

Apparently if you drop an egg on the floor and then use their "helmet like" protector it will not break on the latter attempt.

Of course the same effect could be achieved with a Hot Cross Bun or a number of types of fruit.

Then the most dishonest part, the protection offered when scaled up is the equivalent of wearing a helmet with some 8 inches of polystyrene. FAr greater protection than offered by any helmet



The only thing that Gem Assist really teaches children is dishonesry and a level of bad science that even Gillian Mc Keith would be above stooping to!

Then they ironically talk about children being unable to male an informed choice. They certainly cannot if you are going to mislead and lie to then like Gem Assisst is doing.



If the argument for helmets is so strong - why could they not have been honest?

 

[Bicycle]

Again you have assumed there are only two options........ not the case.

I'm not sure where I assume or even suggest that there are only two options.

Which are the only two options I've assumed?

I re-read my input, fearing that I'd made this assumption and preparing to type an apology.

I just can't find it....

 

[mickle]

can I just say:

 

[Dan B]

"......some cannot post on here without facing aggression and ridicule......"

"ridicule is nothing to be scared of"

 

[4F]

"ridicule is nothing to be scared of"

Adam Ant at his finest

 

[Red Light]

Adam and the Ants at his their finest

FTFY

 

[Cyclopathic]

Compulsion is already here and in the past year there have been three attempts at compulsion in Jersey, Northern Ireland & the UK generally of which the first was successful, the second successfully fought and the third is in progress. This follows on from several other attempts over the last seven years in the UK. On top of that many events are already making helmets compulsory if you want to participate.

To dismiss compulsion is foolish - but for the efforts of a small number of people helmets would probably already be compulsory in the UK by now. It was only concerted efforts to inform members of the House of Lords that got amendments to the Road Safety Act 2006 rejected.

You make a good point. I have not heard any evidence that is compelling enough to warrant making helmets compulsary and I would not like to see it become so. Apart from anything else it seems that with such conflicting evidence and no definitive evidence that a helmet is beneficial in all circumstances or even most that it would be a waste of valuable time to debate and debate this with a view to making it law. It should verymuch be each persons free choice to make.

I'm not sure if it would be possible to disallow events to stipulate helmet wearing because they are more likely to see it in terms of insurance and being sued should anybody hurt themselves. Surely a waver form could be signed by people who don't want to wear a helmet and that would let event organisers off the hook and also help show that there are people who don't want to wear them.