How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[ufkacbln]

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....

The words first, second (no mention of third, fourth or other group) were the first reason I assumed you were referring tho two groups.

The second was the use of the word "both" which in normal usage again refers to two

 

[Bicycle]

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.

Yes, I used the words you say I did. I used them as quoted above.

I mention the two groups as merely the main among (explicitly) plural dangers both when wearing and when not wearing a helmet.

By saying that each is the main danger I imply the presence of other dangers. I may also imply the presence of other pro/anti groups.

As I only mention specifically two of the dangers (both of which are represented by groups of people), it seems perfectly reasonable to refer to them as 'the first' and 'the second' and to refer to 'both'.

I don't say anywhere that this is an exclusive group of two. Indeed, I imply that it is not.

I ought to add also that I was being less than 100% serious and really just trying to get people on helmet threads to lighten up a little.

I am used to failure buy now....

 

[dellzeqq]

We also have the bizarre situation where cyclists are excluded from the proven benefits of training in favour of the unproven benefits of helmets.

absolutely! That is, truly, bonkers!

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes, I used the words you say I did. I used them as quoted above.

I mention the two groups as merely the main among (explicitly) plural dangers both when wearing and when not wearing a helmet.

By saying that each is the main danger I imply the presence of other dangers. I may also imply the presence of other pro/anti groups.

As I only mention specifically two of the dangers (both of which are represented by groups of people), it seems perfectly reasonable to refer to them as 'the first' and 'the second' and to refer to 'both'.

I don't say anywhere that this is an exclusive group of two. Indeed, I imply that it is not.

I ought to add also that I was being less than 100% serious and really just trying to get people on helmet threads to lighten up a little.

I am used to failure buy now....

In which case I misunderstood.... my apologies

 

[tigger]

Can anyone recommend me a good MTB helmet? Don't think my Atmos has the right look for offroad.

 

[Tasker]

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?

I can quite understand your confusion.

Right. there are some who would (quite rightly) claim that the helmet does protect. It does - at low level falls. I'm saying this because all the falls I've had to date have been silly, getting off the bike when knackered or not simply paying attention, and yes, I did bash my (protected) head, in addition to other parts in the process (WTF?) I mean, I woz wearing an effin' helmet here - how come me arm/leg got hurt?

The point is: should you ever find yourself in collision with a car/gliding under a lorry you might as well be wearing an eggbox and an elastic band to keep it on.

Yeah, but what about all them there 'Professional' cyclists wearing them then? Listen up, PLEASE. The only reason they started, and continue to wear them, is because they're paid to.

This safety for cyclists scam is an absolute pornography. Don't believe me? Go onto the Volvo cars site and they're 'concern' for other road users - but read between the lines of what their up to. Cycle lanes? Equal rights for other road users?

The more rights we get to use the Queen's Highway the more we interfere.

Sorry for the rant. Not the response you were after. You want to wear a (con) Helmet? Then do so.

 

[Red Light]

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.

The people who want to make helmets compulsory are not bothered by evidence and they are determined and persistent to remove free choice from cyclists. And good luck getting organisers to accept waiver forms. There are a large number of events now where helmets are mandatory.

 

[StuartG]

I speak as a statistician. The evidence is that a helmet is (in general) will a help in a fall. The evidence also suggests that a fall is less likely if you don't wear a helmet. Sadly there is no way yet to balance the two. So anyone who says its safer to wear a helmet is talking nonsense. So is the guy who says it is safer to not wear a helmet.

So choose what you feel most comfortable with. Or a toss a penny. That really should be the end of the debate. However I fear the evangelists will continue...

 

[Tasker]

So choose what you feel most comfortable with. Or a toss a penny. That really should be the end of the debate. However I fear the evangelists will continue...

I absolutely agree with your post.

 

[ufkacbln]

I speak as a statistician. The evidence is that a helmet is (in general) will a help in a fall. The evidence also suggests that a fall is less likely if you don't wear a helmet. Sadly there is no way yet to balance the two. So anyone who says its safer to wear a helmet is talking nonsense. So is the guy who says it is safer to not wear a helmet.

So choose what you feel most comfortable with. Or a toss a penny. That really should be the end of the debate. However I fear the evangelists will continue...

The argument in a nutshell

The only thing I would add is that the choice should be informed and that is where these debates stand.

When claims are made that helmets are wide enough to protect the face, and other totally untrue claims are made they need to be questioned and disproved.

Gem Assist and BHIT are the classic cases of misleading information and corruption of the facts that aslo need to be challenged.

 

[Red Light]

I speak as a statistician. The evidence is that a helmet is (in general) will a help in a fall. The evidence also suggests that a fall is less likely if you don't wear a helmet.

I'd be interested in some references to the evidence for those two statements.

 

[JonnyBlade]

I'd be interested in some references to the evidence for those two statements.

Bizarrely enough so would I

 

[Red Light]

Bizarrely enough so would I

Odd you consider it bizarre for you to want references.

 

[JonnyBlade]

Odd you consider it bizarre for you to want references.

For me you are far too scientific minded and and lack expansion so I generally find your views a littlr rigid. To agree with you just felt a little odd that's all

 

[Red Light]

For me you are far too scientific minded and and lack expansion so I generally find your views a littlr rigid. To agree with you just felt a little odd that's all

In matters of my health and safety I prefer an evidence based approach, not people making it up. I save the creativity for other areas of my life.