metro article on helmets

[Norm]

Norm I'm not an 'evangelical' at all, I just don't want to crack my head open at the hands of a rubbish driver

Indeed and, as I said, I wear one. However, I have little hope that they will help much if a rubbish driver is involved. They will absorb some energy, but not much but I don't expect my helmet to do anything other than keep doctors and lawyers happy if there is an accident with another vehicle.

What I dont understand is why people go out of their way to prove that helmet are useless, trying to pursuade people not to wear them.

Or, maybe, "people" are just trying to inject reality after erroneous comments from the evangelicals saying suggesting there is any lack of intelligence in those who don't wear helmets just because they have come to a different conclusion.

 

[Red Light]

My point about wearing a helmet and so giving other drivers confidence in my cycling is an important one. If that guy Walker's research is accurate then he says that cyclists without helmets are more unpredictable and so are given more room. I don't want to appear unpredictable that's for sure. I don't wear a helmet primarily for this reason obviously but if wearing one gives drivers more confidence in how I'll ride then great. That still doesn't excuse idiots giving me 10cm worth of space as they pass!

Have you not thought its because they think you are not going to wobble they feel safe in clipping you close. Try it without a helmet - you will notice a difference in passing distance I guarantee.

Also, as I said, that theory is flawed because it was a test conducted by one guy, passing different motorists with and without a helmet, which would make it almost always unbalanced.

It's not flawed. He measured the passing distances of a large number of motorists to reach statistically sound conclusions. Your objection would say that the evidence for a link between smoking and cancer is flawed because you can't compare smoking and not smoking in the same person. And incidentally it was the distance at which they passed him, not he passed them.

I'm not closed to the idea of helmets causing more problems than it prevents but when I leave my flat to go for a ride I reach for my helmet with the view that if my head is hit or if I fall on my head I don't want it being injured. I just don't see why everybody doesn't have this same concern?

You are many times more likely to fall and hit you head as a pedestrian than as a cyclist so I assume you grab your helmet whenever you go out, not just for cycling, for the same reason.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

I try not to take one side nor the other, however in this thread it seems I am really pro helmet, which is not the case, although I do wear a helmet. The point I would like to put forward is that saying helmets dont offer protection is a useless statement unless you can determine the cause and events of each specific crash, which you cant. I am aware that is works both ways.

It may well work both ways but the best evidence there is, which comes from places that made helmets compulsory, is that they do harm more often than they do good. And since you have no way of choosing what type of accident you are going to have, there is a greater probability that if you have an accident your head injuries will be worse if you wear one. Fortunately accidents are so rare the difference doesn't really matter but if you are wearing one to protect yourself you are probably misguided. Keeping you head warm OTOH...... ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[caimg]

Okay, here goes:

I apologise for calling other fellow cyclists on here 'utter douches'. It was stupid and of course everyone is entitled to take whichever approach they think suits them with regards to helmets.

I'm not going to try and pretend that I'm innocent when it comes to knowing all there is to know of the pros and cons of helmets, in which case I'm guilty of being ignorant with my previous posts. I'm not on here to wind up or have a go at anyone so happy to hold up my hands and say that. I have come across as an utter douche with the way I articulated myself and I'm sorry for that!

I'd like to know how many of you non-helmet users used to wear helmets previously? What made you stop? All I care about is not dying so if there are definitive reasons on not wearing a helmet then I'm seriously all-ears!

As it is, I've just finished teaching a man whose wife was clipped by a driver and she fell sideways into a parked car, hitting her head. She was wearing a helmet and broke her arm. Surely there would have been head injuries if she hadn't worn a helmet? I guess the question is, how likely do you consider this event to be?

 

[caimg]

Have you not thought its because they think you are not going to wobble they feel safe in clipping you close. Try it without a helmet - you will notice a difference in passing distance I guarantee.



It's not flawed. He measured the passing distances of a large number of motorists to reach statistically sound conclusions. Your objection would say that the evidence for a link between smoking and cancer is flawed because you can't compare smoking and not smoking in the same person. And incidentally it was the distance at which they passed him, not he passed them.



You are many times more likely to fall and hit you head as a pedestrian than as a cyclist so I assume you grab your helmet whenever you go out, not just for cycling, for the same reason.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I don't follow...how? How would I hit my head as a pedestrian?

 

[Red Light]

I don't follow...how? How would I hit my head as a pedestrian?

Tripping and falling on uneven pavements or over kerbs, being knocked over, being hit by a vehicle while crossing the road, walking into things, being assaulted....

And if you have an accident you are. Statistically much more likely to have a head injury as a pedestrian.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[caimg]

Have you not thought its because they think you are not going to wobble they feel safe in clipping you close. Try it without a helmet - you will notice a difference in passing distance I guarantee.



It's not flawed. He measured the passing distances of a large number of motorists to reach statistically sound conclusions. Your objection would say that the evidence for a link between smoking and cancer is flawed because you can't compare smoking and not smoking in the same person. And incidentally it was the distance at which they passed him, not he passed them.



You are many times more likely to fall and hit you head as a pedestrian than as a cyclist so I assume you grab your helmet whenever you go out, not just for cycling, for the same reason.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

But surely you see the flaw in the first point - I shouldn't have to appear to be more vulnerable to make drivers follow the law! The highway code specifies distance between bikes and cars on the road, this idea encourages people to put their head at risk so that the more dangerous drivers actually obey the law? How about the idea of 'I protect my head more, drivers obey the law and everyone is safe'?

The smoking comparison isn't fair...cigs DO cause cancers, it's proven. They all contain harmful substances. Cars don't all contain harmful drivers.

 

[caimg]

Being knocked over, hit by a vehicle or assaulted are all things that are potentially out of your control. I wear a helmet to cover the possibility of something out of my control happening (being tapped / hit from behind and falling on my head). I'm happy to believe that you're unlikely to hit your head on the road from anything you might have control over.

 

[Red Light]

I'd like to know how many of you non-helmet users used to wear helmets previously? What made you stop? All I care about is not dying so if there are definitive reasons on not wearing a helmet then I'm seriously all-ears!

I used to wear one but then someone suggested I check out the research and having read it I gave up wearing a helmet.

When I was young though, cycle helmets didn't exist. I had plenty of offs, many of them over the handlebars, and never hit my head.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

But surely you see the flaw in the first point - I shouldn't have to appear to be more vulnerable to make drivers follow the law! The highway code specifies distance between bikes and cars on the road, this idea encourages people to put their head at risk so that the more dangerous drivers actually obey the law? How about the idea of 'I protect my head more, drivers obey the law and everyone is safe'?

No actually. There is no legal requirement on passing distance, just guidance. And the effect is subconscious. Reduce the perceived risk and people will take more risks - a psychological effect that is well documented.

The smoking comparison isn't fair...cigs DO cause cancers, it's proven. They all contain harmful substances. Cars don't all contain harmful drivers.

Using the same scientific methodology as used for helmets and passing distance but you think one proved and one flawed. Why?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[caimg]

No actually. There is no legal requirement on passing distance, just guidance. And the effect is subconscious. Reduce the perceived risk and people will take more risks - a psychological effect that is well documented.



Using the same scientific methodology as used for helmets and passing distance but you think one proved and one flawed. Why?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well with the rise of helmet / head cams, drivers are being punished for encroaching on a cyclist's space. If they're being punished then that's relevant enough to me with regard to the law.

Cigarettes and their dangers are very well documented across god-knows how many studies. You compared Walker's study to the dangers of cigarettes. One man's study, surrounded by a variable subject (different drivers) is not the same as hundreds of studies and evidence of the SAME chemicals' effects (static
subject) on a human.

Now if you tell me there are benefits of smoking just as there are to wearing a helmet...?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Yes this is true and I did say in my post that they can be the cause of injury in some cases, you say it has an effect on impact, but helmets are built to absorb impact and the cut the risk of huge cuts to the vital parts of your head.

Most peoples crashes are low impact, I know even my motorbike helmet is useless in really high speed, or high impact crashes, but for those oops moments they can prove invaluable.

admittedly I have ridden plenty of times without a helmet so telling people they should be wearing them is hypocritical, but posting that helmets are more dangerous than not wearing them is generally an uninformed decision based on hearsay. How many people on this forum have actually done research into it, and how many people just spout the usual crap they have seen posted with no evidence from another thread.

Decent helmet companies put a lot of time and research into making our heads protected during riding, the more money you spend on a helmet the more research that company is likely to have done, the newer technologies they will be using and the better protected your head is. Better helmets fit better, have a smaller surface area and are made from stronger materials.

Have you seen race across America with james cracknall, Did you see the state of his head after being hit by the mirror of a truck, the damage to his head and brain afterwards, did you see the damage done to the helmet.. Do you think the injury would have been more severe had the impact of that mirror been directly on the back of his skull? ..

The more money you spend ... the lighter the product is, it's no safer, it meets( barely) the same standards as one from Lidl.

You see the cracked, broken helmet, and you see the the injury , and you use this as a way of believing that the helmet works?????
That's a very odd version of proof.

 

[Bluenite]

I have two cycle helmets, i purchased them over a year ago and have only worn one for about a week, and that was this year.
From my experience that i had with them, i shall never wear one again.
I don't like the claustrophobic feeling of them on my head, or cars coming that close to me without buying me dinner first.
I'll stick to wearing a cap.

 

[MontyVeda]

it's a catch 22.... if i dont wear a helmet i'm a 'douche bag' (apparently)... if I do wear helmet, i look like 'douche bag' (probably)

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't follow...how? How would I hit my head as a pedestrian?

By exactly the same mechanisms as cyclists.

Cohort studies show that pedestrians suffer head injuries on a par with cyclists. Several studies show the risk of head injury being similar.

It is therefore entirely hypocritical to advocate helmets for one group but not the other