metro article on helmets

[caimg]

Search through old helmet debate posts, all the info is there, the situation is not as clear cut as first appears

I know that amongst all the debate here it isn't clear cut, to me personally it's a no-brainer. If I fall and happen to hit my head my chances of survival / avoiding serious injury must improve. Arguments of helmets causing injuries can be a bit of a moot point - they may exaggerate lesser injuries but the protection they offer to more significant injuries is vital.

As for drivers giving cyclists without helmets more space, that's a load of rubbish.

 

[col]

Eh? I don't even get if this meant to be negative?

I think you don't need to compare wearing a helmet to anything. Rather than punching, how about try falling from a height, at speed, on your head. This is a very real possibility.

You wouldn't choose a car without an airbag, why on earth would you actively choose to risk your life by not wearing a helmet?

Some sayThat its more dangerous to wear one because of it just being there. I know I know, its a daft theory but some believe it. A simple test is run into a jagged brick wall head first, then try it with a helmet on . Now a wild stab in the dark Ill guess that with the helmet on it wont hurt or injure as much? What say you?

 

[gaz]

Eh? I don't even get if this meant to be negative?

I think you don't need to compare wearing a helmet to anything. Rather than punching, how about try falling from a height, at speed, on your head. This is a very real possibility.

You wouldn't choose a car without an airbag, why on earth would you actively choose to risk your life by not wearing a helmet?

You are completely missing the point of my post.

I love this type of statement, wearing a helmet can make you hit something that your head wasn't going to hit anyway so the reason you hit your head was because you were wearing a helmet. But what about the thing that your head was going to hit, ahh yes the impact was absorbed through the helmet and although some head damage occurred it was significantly less than would would have happened had a helmet not been on your head. I agree helmets are useless in a lot of situations, but a lot of crashes are caused by people being clipped by cars, slipping on loose surfaces, misjudging corners or in racing being tapped by other bikes. These types of minor offs where your momentum means your head can hit the floor, railings by traffic lights, other riders bikes etc without your control can end in a lot of blood, bruising and skull fractures.. helmets can reduce (not necessarily will) the damage done to your head. Why wouldnt you wear one for the sake of 'it might not save me so therefore its a waste of money'. Ive posted this before, but I had a head on collision with the back of a minibus while I was traveling around 25mph. My helmet was a mess, cracked dented and fractured, my head however was free from bruises, bumps, lumps, cuts, grazes. I had a headache... but I believe it would have been a hospital trip or worse had I not been wearing it.

There is no point trying to preach to me. I wear a helmet!!
I know exactly what a helmet is designed for and I know it can have positive effects as well as negative.

 

[caimg]

I feared I may have been

 

[gaz]

I know that amongst all the debate here it isn't clear cut, to me personally it's a no-brainer. If I fall and happen to hit my head my chances of survival / avoiding serious injury must improve. Arguments of helmets causing injuries can be a bit of a moot point - they may exaggerate lesser injuries but the protection they offer to more significant injuries is vital.

As for drivers giving cyclists without helmets more space, that's a load of rubbish.

Apparently... drivers give people with long blonde hair more space as well
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/653/blonde-wigs-safer-helmets-cyclists

 

[caimg]

Apparently... drivers give people with long blonde hair more space as well
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/653/blonde-wigs-safer-helmets-cyclists

Well that rules me out then! Although...

...who's up for a blonde wig flash mob ride?

 

[RedRider]

On a different tack the metro article is quite interesting. It's unusual in that it focusses on someone challenging the orthodoxy of helmet's are morally good.

On the other hand the clunky way this academic is quoted make him sound exasperated and inarticulate.

‘People die from smoking all the time but no one is banning cigarettes.
Heroin is very dangerous and yes, should be banned. There is more important stuff to worry about,’ said Dr Hooper, who conducted the research in response to legislation making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory in Northern Ireland.
‘If competent adults wish to cycle with their hair (or their shiny plates) exposed to the wind, rain, and sky, then they ought to be able to do so without interference from the government or anyone else.’

It's also slightly interesting the paper feels the need to add a balancing sentence about the ROSPA position "that all cyclists wear a helmet ‘that meets a recognised safety standard’."

How many 'helmet saved his life'/'dead cyclist was bareheaded' stories are balanced with a 'I've been cycling without a helmet all my life and even though I've fallen and hit my head a couple of times I'm still alive and to be honest wearing a helmet might have caused me to break my neck' quotes? None whatsoever!

It's a shame cos if anyone asked that's what I'd say.

 

[Norm]

I know that amongst all the debate here it isn't clear cut, to me personally it's a no-brainer. If I fall and happen to hit my head my chances of survival / avoiding serious injury must improve. Arguments of helmets causing injuries can be a bit of a moot point - they may exaggerate lesser injuries but the protection they offer to more significant injuries is vital.

As for drivers giving cyclists without helmets more space, that's a load of rubbish.

So it's a no brainer that there is no debate but drivers giving cyclists more space is rubbish.

It's sad when people close their minds off to research and put faith in polystyrene.

Blonde wigs for all.

 

[Red Light]

i just cant believe it, there saying helmets dont save people because 80% of deaths, they were wearing them, what about the 1000s that have saved people which they have no record off?

It's easy to show they haven't saved thousands. For every cyclist that wears a helmet, two don't. So if 1,000 have been saved by their helmet then 2,000 won't have been saved because they weren't wearing one. And the figures don't show them. You can do the maths on the official figures to show the maximum number they could have saved is a handful. Unless of course helmet wearers have massively more accidents.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[caimg]

So it's a no brainer that there is no debate but drivers giving cyclists more space is rubbish.

It's sad when people close their minds off to research and put faith in polystyrene.

Blonde wigs for all.

Haha no, I said for me personally it's a no brainer, not that not having a debate is a no-brainer. One guy who did research by himself on his own bike is not conclusive so I won't be buying into the argument that drivers give people with no helmets more room - some drivers are morons, some aren't. If he encountered more morons whilst wearing a helmet then that research is hardly balanced is it? He'd need to ride past the same drivers on two separate occasions, one whilst wearing a helmet and one not, which isn't going to happen.

I don't care if the helmet's made out of bamboo, any protection is good protection in my opinion. I don't believe I will ever read something that convinces me I will be safer not wearing a helmet. If I reach the end of my cycling life having never needed use of my helmet I will still never regret wearing one.

What would be good would be to see people posting after having been in an incident where their helmet has protected them. All I need to see is one of those posts and that justifies it for me right there!

 

[caimg]

Though, having said that, I could empathise with 'Walker''s POV more with regard to what I think when I see a cyclist without a helmet (Bare in mind that I live in London). As soon as I see a London cyclist without a helmet I think 'utter douche'. If a driver also thinks 'utter douche' then they probably, like me, think they're liable to wobble about and suddenly veer into the nearest car, then I guess they could on occasion be given space. My point is a driver would probably have less respect for a helmet-less cyclist's abilities and give them a (not much wider) berth. If any of that's true then I'm quite happy wearing a helmet and giving other road users confidence in my ability.

 

[gaz]

What would be good would be to see people posting after having been in an incident where their helmet has protected them. All I need to see is one of those posts and that justifies it for me right there!

Which is what my post (#9) was about... in some cases people will say a helmet saved their life. But if they where not wearing the helmet their head would not have hit the ground. A false 'positive'.

 

[Red Light]

Though, having said that, I could empathise with 'Walker''s POV more with regard to what I think when I see a cyclist without a helmet (Bare in mind that I live in London). As soon as I see a London cyclist without a helmet I think 'utter douche'. If a driver also thinks 'utter douche' then they probably, like me, think they're liable to wobble about and suddenly veer into the nearest car, then I guess they could on occasion be given space. My point is a driver would probably have less respect for a helmet-less cyclist's abilities and give them a (not much wider) berth. If any of that's true then I'm quite happy wearing a helmet and giving other road users confidence in my ability.

I guess that means you think me and a lot of others here are "utter douches" then.

But since the "utter douches" that ride Boris Bikes have an injury rate a tiny fraction of the "experienced" riders in London then I'd rather be an utter douche.

 

[growingvegetables]

Though, having said that, I could empathise with 'Walker''s POV more with regard to what I think when I see a cyclist without a helmet (Bare in mind that I live in London). As soon as I see a London cyclist without a helmet I think 'utter douche'. If a driver also thinks 'utter douche' then they probably, like me, think they're liable to wobble about and suddenly veer into the nearest car, then I guess they could on occasion be given space. My point is a driver would probably have less respect for a helmet-less cyclist's abilities and give them a (not much wider) berth. If any of that's true then I'm quite happy wearing a helmet and giving other road users confidence in my ability.

You couldn't make it up - caimg, did you actually read what you typed?

You've quite clearly written that you prefer drivers giving you LESS space and courtesy, because it reflects other road users confidence in your ability?

I don't give a monkeys whether you wear a helmet or not - it's entirely up to you, your call, your choice. You'll note that, being a reasonable sort of guy, I don't feel the need to call you an "utter douche", or assert, without the slightest shred of evidence, that you "wobble about and suddenly veer into the nearest car".

So .... until you can come up with something a little more constructive, I am, and will remain, a proud member of the "Utter Douche Club", impervious to your preaching.

 

[Norm]

So .... until you can come up with something a little more constructive, I am, and will remain, a proud member of the "Utter Douche Club", impervious to your preaching.

I think that this is the most frustrating thing with the evangelicals. I wear a helmet and Gaz said up-thread that he wears a helmet and... well, there's a few others who are anti-evangelical who also wear a helmet. I've no issue with people making their own choice.

But why do the evangelicals feel the need to belittle those who have come to a different conclusion? I would no more consider someone to be an utter douche for not wearing one than I'd consider them to be an utter douche for wearing lycra or SPDs.

As an aside, I've recently started wearing a "bump cap" on the road. Obviously, the lack of retention system (it is a tight fit, though) means it won't stay on in a big one but it has no snag points and helmets don't prevent broken legs anyway. It's much less conspicuous as it looks like a normal peaked cap and, it might be perception but I do seem to get more space, especially when riding my old hack. I've been wearing it for a month and I've not had a single close pass in that time.

I'm also amused that the evangelicals don't seem to mind people who wear cycling helmets and then cover them in pressure points and snags like lights and cameras, without any consideration of the increased risks that they pose. That's not meant to be a generalisation, I know that some do fit snap-off brackets and the like, but many don't.

The way that most helmets are fitted also never seems to get a comment from the evangelicals. Most wearers do not take the few minutes required to set the straps up properly, again increasing the dangers that a helmet poses but they seldom get called utter douches.