I have my mind changed about helmets!

[danphoto]

convinces motorists and my wife I am a safety concious cyclist

Eh? You mean wearing your helmet convinces motorists that they don't have to be so careful around you because if they hit you, you won't leave your brain on the tarmac (or worse still, their nice motor car)?

And I don't mind a bit of cheese as long as it's not one of those disgusting stinky ones to which the French are partial.

 

[stevetailor125]

I don't actually have to get involved in the for or against helmet evidence. I have my own personal reasons for wearing a helmet and that is the evidence from my head impacting the gutter area of a car roof and the evidence of my friends helmet in a similar accident. Now I suppose if I have another accident and my helmet is useless then I know it's a waste of time wearing it, as I said personal choice based on personal evidence. I am not on here saying where a helmet or don't wear a helmet

 

[Red Light]

I don't actually have to get involved in the for or against helmet evidence.

So when you said:

No its not because at present there is as much evidence against helmets as for helmets

it was not based on any knowledge and is presumably just supposition on your part.

You can wear whatever you like on your head, its a free country, but if you want to start claiming there is evidence for helmets you really should have some clue what it is.

 

[screenman]

Red Light if you troll the net you will find that the guys helmet did indeed hit the tarmac, OK he did suffer suspected concussion and did not start the next day but surely even you could not say he would have been better off without the helmet.

Did I ever say I am certainly against compulsion for helmet wearing, just feel that anyone who does not wear one and has an accident that damages their head should maybe pick up the repair bill themselves and not expect the rest of us to do so.

 

[stevetailor125]

I have read the evidence for and against, I just choose not to put what I have read about the subject on here. Like I choose not to say you must wear a helmet or you must not wear a helmet on here.
Just because I choose not to involve myself in an argument, except to give my own reasons for wearing a helmet and to state it is personal choice does not mean I have not done the research

 

[al78]

Red Light if you troll the net you will find that the guys helmet did indeed hit the tarmac, OK he did suffer suspected concussion and did not start the next day but surely even you could not say he would have been better off without the helmet.

Did I ever say I am certainly against compulsion for helmet wearing, just feel that anyone who does not wear one and has an accident that damages their head should maybe pick up the repair bill themselves and not expect the rest of us to do so.

If you are going to make a statement like that, you need to show that helmets make a significant difference to serious head injuries amongst cyclists on a population level scale. The thing is, there isn't:

http://www.cyclecraf...st/2002glos.pdf
http://www.cyclehelm...apers/c2022.pdf

 

[ufkacbln]

Did I ever say I am certainly against compulsion for helmet wearing, just feel that anyone who does not wear one and has an accident that damages their head should maybe pick up the repair bill themselves and not expect the rest of us to do so.

I would expect the same.....

Anyone who falls whilst having had a drink (60% of head injuries)
Anyone who has a simple fall (40% of head injuries)
Anyone over 65 (30% of head injuries)
Car occupants (32% of head injuries)
Any child not wearing a Thudguard

In all these cases it is extremely likely that a helmet could have prevented the injury so it is only right we follow your example and expect these groups to pay their way and not expect us to pick up the bill for their decision not to do so.

I assume you will be supporting this?

 

[Red Light]

Red Light if you troll the net you will find that the guys helmet did indeed hit the tarmac, OK he did suffer suspected concussion and did not start the next day but surely even you could not say he would have been better off without the helmet.

Cyclist deaths in competition. What do you think caused the tripling in cyclist death rates from about 1997/8 on? It could be coincidence but it was about the time helmets became widespread in competition post Casartelli prior to becoming mandatory in 2003.

Did I ever say I am certainly against compulsion for helmet wearing, just feel that anyone who does not wear one and has an accident that damages their head should maybe pick up the repair bill themselves and not expect the rest of us to do so.

Do you feel the same about head injured motorists or pedestrians who didn't wear helmets. How about people that are overweight or don't exercise and get diabetes or coronary disease? Or smokers with cancer? Where do you draw the line in people's responsibility for their injuries?

 

[Red Light]

I have read the evidence for and against, I just choose not to put what I have read about the subject on here.

I didn't ask you to put what you had read about the subject on here, just to back up your statement that there was evidence for helmets with a reference to one good example of that evidence.

 

[stevetailor125]

And as I said I didn't come on here to do anything but give my own personal reason for wearing my helmet, not to be told to provide evidence either way. It is my personal opinion that is all

 

[classic33]

Looking at this from the side of someone on foot at the time of the incident, not cycling.

I have cracked my skull in 13 seperate places, at the same time.
Hit a marble floor face first, no injury. Fall was similar to a log falling over.
Gone face first into the center of a country backroad. (Two lines of tarmac, gravel moved out to the sides by passing traffic) Cut above the eye.
Opened the top of my head. Leving a "flap" of skin about 2 inches long requiring stitches.
Lost count of the number of times that there have been cracks to the skull.

So where do my responsibilities lie?
All the above, and more have happenned as a result of something over which I have no control.
It can't be foreseen, I know it can happen & once started it can't be stopped, & I was told that the old style racing helmets(padded leather) would not have prevented any of the above.

 

[ufkacbln]

Looking at this from the side of someone on foot at the time of the incident, not cycling.

I have cracked my skull in 13 seperate places, at the same time.
Hit a marble floor face first, no injury. Fall was similar to a log falling over.
Gone face first into the center of a country backroad. (Two lines of tarmac, gravel moved out to the sides by passing traffic) Cut above the eye.
Opened the top of my head. Leving a "flap" of skin about 2 inches long requiring stitches.
Lost count of the number of times that there have been cracks to the skull.

So where do my responsibilities lie?
All the above, and more have happenned as a result of something over which I have no control.
It can't be foreseen, I know it can happen & once started it can't be stopped, & I was told that the old style racing helmets(padded leather) would not have prevented any of the above.

But is that really the case?

A "hair net" would have probably saved the skin flap and lacerations.

 

[gb155]

I will only say that's a blatant misrepresentation of the anti-compulsion side. I have fractured my skull, I do wear a helmet but I will challenge anyone who thinks that it's absolutely clear cut you should wear a helmet. It's far from so, nor do I see what expertise health professionals have which qualifies them to comment of the efficacy of cycle helmets, head injuries yes, helmets no.

Proof beyond doubt you say, a large pinch of salt I say. If we'd ever reached that point then these debates would be over.

Peds are often mentioned but it's a large pink herring because everyone forgets about centre of gravity which is far higher on a bike and makes risk comparison moot, as does potential speed.

I think most of the weary posts in these threads stem from those who've seen all this before and still await anything definitive on the subject.

If you asked me for my view, I'd say wear a helmet because on balance I feel it might do you some good and probably won't do you any harm but it could. I'd take a twisted neck over a fractured skull any day though, having done both, though only mildly twisted my neck muscles and not cycling. And if it was going to put someone off cycling, I'd say leave it, as the greater good of cycling outweighs the small risk of a serious head injury.

I think I've fulfilled my helmet quota for this year now, I'd rather talk about pelmets. Surely no-one has pelmets anymore? If they do does it make them more or less likely to ride a bike?

I'd have to agree with the bolded bit TBH

 

[screenman]

That one set the forum alight, now as to what tripled the death rate in racing, now could it have been increased speeds, more motorist, harder courses, better reporting and record keeping.

 

[Crackle]

Did I ever say I am certainly against compulsion for helmet wearing, just feel that anyone who does not wear one and has an accident that damages their head should maybe pick up the repair bill themselves and not expect the rest of us to do so.

People are free to choose how they live their life and what activities/lifestyle etc... they do/have, I have no compulsion to tell them how to live or object to my taxes paying for something that I wouldn't do, in the same way I live my own life and expect no interference in my choices. Down this path be demons......