I love helmets

[Big Nick]

Edit: You putting evidence in quote marks above is quite crass and offensive TBH. If you choose to ignore the evidence that cycling is low risk and that helmets offer no statistically significant benefit, that's up to you, but don't belittle those of us who actually think critically about the issue please.

Are you serious....pot and kettle come to mind from the 'evidenced' based cyclist!

 

[Mugshot]

Compulsion is a major component of the whole debate.

@Big Nick As far as I'm concerned, compulsion is not just the introduction of legislation, in case you thought it was, for me it is also the continual pressure from media, peers, friends, family and even strangers on the internet.

 

[Big Nick]

@Big Nick As far as I'm concerned, compulsion is not just the introduction of legislation, in case you thought it was, for me it is also the continual pressure from media, peers, friends, family and even strangers on the internet.

You present as the sort of person whom would not bow to such pressures gauging your posts on here

 

[Mugshot]

Isn't it about whether a helmet's worth wearing to protect your bonce?

Is this for any activity which carries some risk?

 

[Big_Dave]

I haven't changed my view on cycle helmets, I have sustained a non life threatening although fairly serious head injury cycling, my step son 9 years ago suffered horrendous head/brain injuries (hit by a car crossing the road as a pedestrian ironically) and very near fatal to the point the hospital claimed there was "no" brain activity and not responding to any tests they did effectively saying he was brain dead he was on life support machine and the decision was made to turn off the machine after 24hrs, just two hours before they were due to turn it off there was a flicker of brain activity and the decided to immediately operate on his brain to remove a clot in which a large section of his skull was removed and left out to relieve swelling, after about a month he came out of the coma and spent several months in hospital before they replaced his section of skull. He has recovered fairly well although he will probably never be able to work. My wife suffered a sudden cardiac arrest (yes cardiac arrest not heart attack) in which see suffered from lack of oxygen to the brain and was left with milder brain damage. Although both these cases were not cycling related, forgive me for thinking that in my opinion that a helmet may help protect my head from a minor fall, I have no illusions that a cycle helmet would protect me 100% in a accident, if the odds are e.g. that it only saves 1% of people that would otherwise have sustained head injuries/death rather than not wearing one then to me that is worth it. To me my brain is pretty valuable to me even if it is largely unused

 

[Big Nick]

No it not subjective. Helmets are often observed to have split or cracked rather than compressing. This means they were ineffective in absorbing energy in the collision.

How much examination is made of such helmets and to what degree?

Would such checks be purely visual or would such helmets be lab tested for compression to the inners if used to evidence their ineffectiveness?

 

[Big Nick]

Is this for any activity which carries some risk?

Not for me on this forum just for cycling

 

[Mugshot]

You present as the sort of person whom would bow to such pressures gauging your posts on here

That's an odd thing to say considering how many times I've said I don't wear a helmet and I've also posted today that I stopped wearing one following my own research.
You don't present as this sort of person

 

[Big Nick]

That's an odd thing to say considering how many times I've said I don't wear a helmet and I've also posted today that I stopped wearing one following my own research.
You present as this sort of person
View attachment 59114

I meant to say *not and have edited the post just prior to your childish retort

 

[Mugshot]

I haven't changed my view on cycle helmets, I have sustained a non life threatening although fairly serious head injury cycling, my step son 9 years ago suffered horrendous head/brain injuries (hit by a car crossing the road as a pedestrian ironically) and very near fatal to the point the hospital claimed there was "no" brain activity and not responding to any tests they did effectively saying he was brain dead he was on life support machine and the decision was made to turn off the machine after 24hrs, just two hours before they were due to turn it off there was a flicker of brain activity and the decided to immediately operate on his brain to remove a clot in which a large section of his skull was removed and left out to relieve swelling, after about a month he came out of the coma and spent several months in hospital before they replaced his section of skull. He has recovered fairly well although he will probably never be able to work. My wife suffered a sudden cardiac arrest (yes cardiac arrest not heart attack) in which see suffered from lack of oxygen to the brain and was left with milder brain damage. Although both these cases were not cycling related, forgive me for thinking that in my opinion that a helmet may help protect my head from a minor fall, I have no illusions that a cycle helmet would protect me 100% in a accident, if the odds are e.g. that it only saves 1% of people that would otherwise have sustained head injuries/death rather than not wearing one then to me that is worth it. To me my brain is pretty valuable to me even if it is largely unused

No forgiveness required or requested, if it keeps you cycling, keep wearing it

 

[Mugshot]

I meant to say *not and have edited the post just prior to your childish retort

Cheers Nick, I've editted my post, I'll leave it up if that's ok though as I like the gif.*

*As I am very childish

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Did you read the links in the srws' post which you liked?

I am currently working my way through them. Although I'm pretty sure I've had them linked, and read them, before.

You may have been able to infer that by the fact that I chose to use refer to the stance that I considered a degree of injury to be sufficient for something to be dangerous, rather than for it to be actively deadly. Most of the quoted reports are looking at serious injuries and fatalities as proof for helmet use. I'm not actually debating helmet use here, I'm suggesting that the concept that cycling has no danger attached to it is an interesting one given that cyclists appear to have been in dangerous situations/danger to a greater degree than other activities, as evidenced by their ability to talk anecdotally about those situations.

 

[Mugshot]

I am currently working my way through them. Although I'm pretty sure I've had them linked, and read them, before.

You may have been able to infer that by the fact that I chose to use refer to the stance that I considered a degree of injury to be sufficient for something to be dangerous, rather than for it to be actively deadly. Most of the quoted reports are looking at serious injuries and fatalities as proof for helmet use. I'm not actually debating helmet use here, I'm suggesting that the concept that cycling has no danger attached to it is an interesting one given that cyclists appear to have been in dangerous situations/danger to a greater degree than other activities, as evidenced by their ability to talk anecdotally about those situations.

They are quite long aren't they.
I may have sounded somewhat brusque in my question it wasn't my intention, perhaps "Have you had a chance to" would have sounded better.
I'm not sure that anybody is suggesting that cycling has no danger attached to it and certain types carry more risk than others, what's being said is that you have a similar chance of suffering head injuries when involved in other activities which one would never consider wearing a helmet for, why is that? To me it doesn't make sense. If the idea was to reduce the number of head injuries then we'd be looking at car occupants, but that again is considered a ludicrous suggestion. What singles out cycling as the everyday activity which requires a helmet?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

So not evidence then, just anecdotes. There are also threads on here like 'Your ride today', and forums devoted to members' travel stories, in which no accidents or injuries feature. Far more anecdotes about safe rides than about accidents. Are you reassured?

I'm not sure what you're reading that suggests I need to be reassured about something?

I'm not denying that there are a lot of people here who happily go about their every day cycling without any accidents. I've ridden almost 3000 miles this year and have had no accidents. I'm happy with that. Near misses, I've had a few though. Again, there are 7 pages of 'cyclist down' messages in the sub forum. You're comfortable that these are just anecdotes that aren't evidence of anything? They don't suggest to you in any way that there might be a chance of getting injured that is associated with riding a bicycle? You've had no near misses at all this year? Nothing you'd consider an overly close pass? Nothing that made you think 'I'm glad that didn't go a little differently'?

There is advice here on how to cycle defensively, how to make sure that you are in a safe place on the road, ways to ride to minimise the chance of an accident. If what we do is lovely and safe, what's the point in inconveniencing all of those electrons by flitting this stuff around the internet?

Yes, it is possible to minimise the chance of injury while riding a bicycle. Yes, it is possible to ride your entire cycling life and never get any sort of injury while doing it. But I'm pretty sure you can look through here and find safe cyclists who have been injured. Or are you suggesting that anyone who has been injured while riding a bicycle has suffered that injury from their own negligence?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating helmet use to stop this, or full leathers, or a completely separate cycling infrastructure. All I'm suggesting is that as someone who uses a bicycle you don't do your argument any favours by announcing that there is no danger attached to it. At some level we all make choices every day based on that (which roads to ride, when to ride, what to wear, how to set up the bicycle, how we ride the bicycle) don't we?

 

[srw]

All of which doesn't negate @srw 's point, which was in response to your:


So events can be found where a helmet isn't required (the FNRTTC is an example that springs to mind) and as noted, Boris Bikes are hired and don't need a helmet.

Interestingly (well nearly...) Evans Ride It sportives have a mandatory helmet rule

But in the next paragraph it seems riders are not covered by Evans insurance:

So how where does the requirement for a mandatory helmet come from? (sorry, drifting off topic a bit there)

Organiser's liability, rather than participants' liability.

@Big_Dave - you may deduce (correctly) that I know one or two things about insurance, so your post #218 is a little misplaced in trying to correct my description of the processes.