I love helmets

[GrasB]

Outcome bias

Maybe but I'm yet to suffer a head injury without a helmet but have suffered neck injures when wearing a helmet. I've ridden more miles without a helmet than with a helmet.

My point was to put across that you're changing the risks, but not necessarily diminishing them.

 

[Big Nick]

This thread proves yet again that human are absolutely terrible at risk assessment, but brilliant at trumping evidence with anecdote.

The difference is those whom risk assess and those whom are risk adverse

The older I get the more I become the latter

 

[Big Nick]

Maybe but I'm yet to suffer a head injury without a helmet but have suffered neck injures when wearing a helmet. I've ridden more miles without a helmet than with a helmet.

My point was to put across that you're changing the risks, but not necessarily diminishing them.

How do you know your neck injuries were caused by your helmet?

 

[GrasB]

How do you know your neck injuries were caused by your helmet?

All of my neck injuries have been from low side slides on the bike with me sliding along the ground at moderate to low speeds (5-15mph). The only injuries sustained besides road rash has been whiplash and there was no initial impact of the helmet on the ground, only snagging from when rolling. The conclusion of everyone I've spoken to about this has been the only way that injury could have been cause in the incidents has been cause directly from the helmet being present.

 

[Mugshot]

All of my neck injuries have been from low side slides on the bike with me sliding along the ground at moderate to low speeds (5-15mph). The only injuries sustained besides road rash has been whiplash and there was no initial impact of the helmet on the ground, only snagging from when rolling. The conclusion of everyone I've spoken to about this has been the only way that injury could have been cause in the incidents has been cause directly from the helmet being present.

Were any of them medical professionals?

 

[benb]

The difference is those whom risk assess and those whom are risk adverse

The older I get the more I become the latter

So my question is why, if you're so risk averse, don't you wear a helmet for other everyday activities where the risk of head injuries is similar to that of cycling?

 

[GrasB]

Were any of them medical professionals?

They've had their say... along with other people who know a fair bit more than your typical medical professionals on the subject

 

[Mugshot]

Speed I suppose and the fact that cycling on roads you come into contact with many poor drivers who simply don't see or ignore your presence on the road.

I realise that other parts of my body will probably be the parts injured in a crash but I value my head the most so add some protection however small that may be to try and lessen any possible head impact.

I've also ridden motorcycles for 30 years so I suppose putting on a helmet when I take to two wheels has become the norm for me

Ok, I can understand that even if I don't agree.
Do you only ride on the roads or at speed? If, for example you were out for a leisurely spin down the canal path do you feel the need to wear a helmet then?
One thing that I have to admit grinds my gears is seeing kids on bikes with stabilisers nowhere near a road trundling along at no more than walking speed with a helmet on, as there are no other vehicles around and no significant speed involved do you think this is taking things too far?

 

[Mugshot]

They've had their say... along with other people who know a fair bit more than your typical medical professionals on the subject

I was wondering as we often hear how our medical professionals are staunchly pro helmet use, indeed we've just had a thread all about it.

 

[GrasB]

Surely those are the people who would benefit most from a helmet as they're the ones which will have the lowest energy impacts? Part of the problem with cycle helmets is the amount of energy they absorb is very low.

 

[GrasB]

I was wondering as we often hear how our medical professionals are staunchly pro helmet use, indeed we've just had a thread all about it.

I think it's one of those things that you hear from the people advocating change rather than the people who think the status quo is correct.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'd worry about derailing or diverting this thread, but it's about helmets so, you know... :-)

First, for all of those worried about all those life changing injuries you'll get not wearing a helmet, I offer you Thrasher Hall of Meat the joy of skateboarding magazines and their helmetless bails (even if they were proved 100% efficient they wouldn't wear one because it's not cool). This is really just because talking in the car about this subject my 20 year old brought up the fact that heads are actually quite tough (as has been mentioned elsewhere.) nb I've not watched these videos, I have no idea if they are work safe, etc. I'd imagine there will be blood and probably loudly played music by popular beat combos.

Secondly, I'd be interested to know why the anti-compulsion side doesn't seem to be putting cycling's own house in order. I was at the NEC for the bike show, there was the option to try out bikes. If you wanted to do that, you had to wear a helmet (I think this was for all of them, it was definitely the case for the 'premium bikes' bit). My LBS does Sunday ride outs, allegedly no-one is dropped from the slow group (this is a lie, but we'll skim over that) we we're not talking all out on the rivet chain ganging here. They do have one rule though, all riders must wear helmets. It goes on, there are loads of areas within cycling itself that are pushing compulsion. If we want to see an end to the implied threat of compulsion, and maybe a lessening in the number of helmeted riders. I would be interested in stats on that, how big a survey would we need to do for it to be valuable? I'd sit on a chair for a day with a couple of clickers if it would help work out where we were with numbers. Presuming nobody already has. Wouldn't a sensible place to start things off be to do a serious push for the places that show off cycling to be less one track about helmets (I'm trying to think back to watching the cycle show, from memory it was pretty much 100% helmeted, no?). Just a thought.

 

[Mugshot]

Surely those are the people who would benefit most from a helmet as they're the ones which will have the lowest energy impacts? Part of the problem with cycle helmets is the amount of energy they absorb is very low.

Agreed.
Big Nick was saying that at least part of the reason he chooses to wear a helmet is the speed involved and also the traffic he encounters. I was interested to know if he still feels helmets are as important if these two things are removed from the equation. Where does Big Nick think that the risk becomes such that the wearing of a helmet is advisable?

 

[GrasB]

I'd worry about derailing or diverting this thread, but it's about helmets so, you know... :-)

First, for all of those worried about all those life changing injuries you'll get not wearing a helmet, I offer you Thrasher Hall of Meat the joy of skateboarding magazines and their helmetless bails (even if they were proved 100% efficient they wouldn't wear one because it's not cool). This is really just because talking in the car about this subject my 20 year old brought up the fact that heads are actually quite tough (as has been mentioned elsewhere.) nb I've not watched these videos, I have no idea if they are work safe, etc. I'd imagine there will be blood and probably loudly played music by popular beat combos.

Secondly, I'd be interested to know why the anti-compulsion side doesn't seem to be putting cycling's own house in order. I was at the NEC for the bike show, there was the option to try out bikes. If you wanted to do that, you had to wear a helmet (I think this was for all of them, it was definitely the case for the 'premium bikes' bit). My LBS does Sunday ride outs, allegedly no-one is dropped from the slow group (this is a lie, but we'll skim over that) we we're not talking all out on the rivet chain ganging here. They do have one rule though, all riders must wear helmets. It goes on, there are loads of areas within cycling itself that are pushing compulsion. If we want to see an end to the implied threat of compulsion, and maybe a lessening in the number of helmeted riders. I would be interested in stats on that, how big a survey would we need to do for it to be valuable? I'd sit on a chair for a day with a couple of clickers if it would help work out where we were with numbers. Presuming nobody already has. Wouldn't a sensible place to start things off be to do a serious push for the places that show off cycling to be less one track about helmets (I'm trying to think back to watching the cycle show, from memory it was pretty much 100% helmeted, no?). Just a thought.

A lot of in-industry compulsion comes from litigation lawyers. My club in Italy has a helmets must be worn on club organised rides rule because they simply couldn't get liability insurance without having that as a club rule. I can tell you that there was a lot of yelling & people left the club because of this rule, but the club had no choice.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

A lot of in-industry compulsion comes from litigation lawyers. My club in Italy has a helmets must be worn on club organised rides rule because they simply couldn't get liability insurance without having that as a club rule. I can tell you that there was a lot of yelling & people left the club because of this rule, but the club had no choice.

I thought, seeing as there is no actual evidence of them doing any good, that it shouldn't matter when it comes to litigation lawyers? What are they arguing successfully?