metro article on helmets

[jefmcg]

Oh! I see, but the Metro article only has one sentence on the Australian experience, insufficient to come to any conclusions, I would think.

or to put it another way, it's one paragraph out of 8 and the only statistic or supporting fact in the article.

 

[caimg]

What is being challenged is the omnipotence and evangelical belief in helmets as a wonderful panacea for all cycling's issues. Dismissing "nit picking facts" such as helmet standards, that they have a limited effectiveness, and can cause injury is a classic "denial" of facts that simply don't fit a fixed and closed agenda. However if someone is happy in their ignorance, and wishes to dismiss fact in favour of the fiction of "helmets save

You are now stepping into the realms of absurdity as a defensive maneouver. I am not omnipotent nor do I have an evangelical belief in helmets as a panacea for all cycling issues...who does? I'm sure you said that tongue in cheek but it's still silly.

The people that wear helmets wear them because they believe they will offer some level of protection if their head is involved in an incident. Telling me that I'm just as likely to be involved in a similar incident on the pavement so I'm a hypocrite for only wearing one on the road is just ridiculous.

I can see that stats show that head injuries from cycling are low but some of us don't want to take that chance, I feel way more vulnerable on the road than on the pavement.

No-one thinks helmets do anything other than offer some protection for the head. If you still don't to wear one that's cool - but disputing that fact is silly.

Edit: I've read websites that claim helmets can cause injuries in certain situations but worn properly that STILL doesn't negate their effectiveness - however small - of a blow to the head.

 

[col]

 

[Cycloslalomeur]

You are now stepping into the realms of absurdity as a defensive maneouver. I am not omnipotent nor do I have an evangelical belief in helmets as a panacea for all cycling issues...who does? I'm sure you said that tongue in cheek but it's still silly.

The people that wear helmets wear them because they believe they will offer some level of protection if their head is involved in an incident. Telling me that I'm just as likely to be involved in a similar incident on the pavement so I'm a hypocrite for only wearing one on the road is just ridiculous.

I can see that stats show that head injuries from cycling are low but some of us don't want to take that chance, I feel way more vulnerable on the road than on the pavement.

No-one thinks helmets do anything other than offer some protection for the head. If you still don't to wear one that's cool - but disputing that fact is silly.

Edit: I've read websites that claim helmets can cause injuries in certain situations but worn properly that STILL doesn't negate their effectiveness - however small - of a blow to the head.

Would you care to explain in terms even I can understand why it is ridiculous to compare and contrast pedestrian and cyclist head injury rates, especially given your apparent acceptance of the severe limitations of cycle helmets regarding impacts involving fatal acceleration rates?

 

[caimg]

I've just said, I personally feel more vulnerable on the road as a cyclist than on the pavement away from cars. Statistically, I am being shot down for this but it's how I feel, and I'm pretty sure there are other cyclists who would agree. I've not mentioned fatal head injuries anyway, I don't want any type of head injury full stop! I'm not wearing one because I expect it to prevent death from a head injury I otherwise may have died from without a helmet. I'm wearing it to help minimize damage from any kind of incident with my precious skull and brain.

Also, is there not an issue that a number of cyclists who have incidents involving knocks to the head, which may have been protected by their helmet, go uncounted with regards to stats? If they're able to walk away and continue then who knew?

 

[Norm]

Also, is there not an issue that a number of cyclists who have incidents involving knocks to the head, which may have been protected by their helmet, go uncounted with regards to stats? If they're able to walk away and continue then who knew?

Looking at individual cases, yes, although the opposite is also true and the hypothesis should be that those who have incidents may go uncounted whether or not they wear a helmet.

However, that's where population-wide research, such as that referenced in the article from the Metro, comes in.

Broadly, and simplifying hugely, if 80% of cyclists wear helmets and 80% of cyclists with head injuries in hospitals are cyclists who were wearing helmets, then helmet wearing would appear not to be a factor (or it introduces other factors) in relation to head injuries.

 

[Cycloslalomeur]

I've just said, I personally feel more vulnerable on the road as a cyclist than on the pavement away from cars. Statistically, I am being shot down for this but it's how I feel, and I'm pretty sure there are other cyclists who would agree. I've not mentioned fatal head injuries anyway, I don't want any type of head injury full stop! I'm not wearing one because I expect it to prevent death from a head injury I otherwise may have died from without a helmet. I'm wearing it to help minimize damage from any kind of incident with my precious skull and brain.

Also, is there not an issue that a number of cyclists who have incidents involving knocks to the head, which may have been protected by their helmet, go uncounted with regards to stats? If they're able to walk away and continue then who knew?

But you must cross carriageways in order to walk from one bit of footpath to another. With regard to feeling safe and related beliefs, mankind's technology got the better of your brains long ago. Why are people afraid of flying even though they are well aware that commercial aviation is by far the safest mode of transport? There simply is no alternative to putting feelings and beliefs to one side and looking at the evidence instead.

I daresay a cyclist casualty sans helmet is more likely to seek medical attention than a helmeted one is because the former will bleed and the latter may not but still be concussed for example, his "logic" being "I bumped my head but I'm fine because my helmet saved me ergo no need to go to the A&E".

 

[Bluenite]

Wear a helmet if you want too Caimg, don't worry about what others think.
If i cared about what people thought i'd be a 66DD with a truck load of offspring. I tried helmets, didn't like it so now i stick
to my baseball cap.

 

[col]

There is no doubt a helmet can stop certain injuries, I dont understand why some dont just accept this, but then this place is renowned for argument for argument sake

 

[Norm]

There is no doubt a helmet can stop certain injuries, I dont understand why some dont just accept this...

Has anyone in particular made that claim?

 

[col]

Has anyone in particular made that claim?

Not directly no, but instead of argueing all the other possibilities, why not just say, yes your right ,they do save from some injuries, which is what the op was meaning.

 

[benb]

Telling me that I'm just as likely to be involved in a similar incident on the pavement so I'm a hypocrite for only wearing one on the road is just ridiculous.

I can see that stats show that head injuries from cycling are low but some of us don't want to take that chance, I feel way more vulnerable on the road than on the pavement.

Why is it ridiculous?
Your feelings (and mine) as to how vulnerable you feel are irrelevant at best to how we should investigate the effectiveness of cycle helmets.

Fact: You are about as likely to suffer a serious head injury as a pedestrian as you are as a cyclist (that is, not very likely at all).

Therefore to insist on, or promote, helmet use in cyclists without doing the same with pedestrians is hypocritical.

 

[ufkacbln]

You are now stepping into the realms of absurdity as a defensive maneouver. I am not omnipotent nor do I have an evangelical belief in helmets as a panacea for all cycling issues...who does? I'm sure you said that tongue in cheek but it's still silly.

No-one is being defensive or offensive, simply stating facts. Look up the twisted lies, inaccuracies and emotive blackmail that passses for justification for their helmet compulsion campaign on the BHIT website.

The people that wear helmets wear them because they believe they will offer some level of protection if their head is involved in an incident. Telling me that I'm just as likely to be involved in a similar incident on the pavement so I'm a hypocrite for only wearing one on the road is just ridiculous.

Total misinterpretation. The assertion is that pedestrians and cyclists have similar risks - How is it ridiculous?

Two people are undertaking an activity with the same risk of the same injury, yet one needs to protect themselves, the other doesn't. How else can than be defined but hypocritical?

In any other field such as industry people would be rolling on the floor in fits of laughter at such a sugetsion!

I can see that stats show that head injuries from cycling are low but some of us don't want to take that chance, I feel way more vulnerable on the road than on the pavement.

An entire irrelevance on a larger scale as to where you do or do not feel safe. That is your personal perception and it is up to you to deal with that on a personal basis.

But is a helmet the answer?

The evidence shows that training children in proper cycling and road use has a far greater effect on head injury (and other injury) reduction than the wearing of helmets.

This is again where helmet evangelism such as the BHIT is dangerous. If we as a nation were to spend the same money, effort and energy on training children as we do in trying to make them wear helmets there would be far greater benefit

Which comes to the choice element again. If you feel vulnerable and hence wish to wear a helmet then please do. However if the next person is more experienced, better trained and fitter then they may not wish to. That is equally their choice and why should they be challenged for the decision?

No-one thinks helmets do anything other than offer some protection for the head. If you still don't to wear one that's cool - but disputing that fact is silly.

Edit: I've read websites that claim helmets can cause injuries in certain situations but worn properly that STILL doesn't negate their effectiveness - however small - of a blow to the head.

But the evidence clearly shows that poorly fitted helmets and some designs do cause injury and whilst you may find that inconvenient, the only "silly" thing is dismissing it because it is inconvenient.

 

[Norm]

Not directly no, but instead of argueing all the other possibilities, why not just say, yes your right ,they do save from some injuries, which is what the op was meaning.

Well, kinda, and I did post "Helmets may help in specific circumstances, that is indisputable" upthread.

The OP, though, was to explain a disbelief in the article posted in the Metro that referenced a study which suggests helmets are useless in bike accidents with the assertion that "I just cant believe it". That strikes me as exactly the sort of closed-minded "arguing all the other possibilities" which you "don't understand why some don't just accept this".

The unbelievers on this thread are not myself, BenB, gaz, Cunobelin etc. The unbelievers are those who, for instance, don't understand the risks are as great when walking as when cycling so would never suggest helmets for pedestrians.

I don't much care whether someone believes the statistics or not, I will take research over emotion or preconception (and I'll wear a helmet where I like )

Yes, helmets do save from some injuries, there, I've said it twice in one post. Now, can you say that you believe that helmets may worsen injuries? Or, can you say that you believe that helmets may actually cause injuries where there may have otherwise been none?

This is all that I am saying. Helmets may protect in some circumstances, they may make things worse in others. Overall, all the research says that it's a wash and the two factors balance out.

 

[col]

Well, kinda, and I did post "Helmets may help in specific circumstances, that is indisputable" upthread.

The OP, though, was to explain a disbelief in the article posted in the Metro that referenced a study which suggests helmets are useless in bike accidents with the assertion that "I just cant believe it". That strikes me as exactly the sort of closed-minded "arguing all the other possibilities" which you "don't understand why some don't just accept this".

The unbelievers on this thread are not myself, BenB, gaz, Cunobelin etc. The unbelievers are those who, for instance, don't understand the risks are as great when walking as when cycling so would never suggest helmets for pedestrians.

I don't much care whether someone believes the statistics or not, I will take research over emotion or preconception (and I'll wear a helmet where I like )

Yes, helmets do save from some injuries, there, I've said it twice in one post. Now, can you say that you believe that helmets may worsen injuries? Or, can you say that you believe that helmets may actually cause injuries where there may have otherwise been none?

This is all that I am saying. Helmets may protect in some circumstances, they may make things worse in others. Overall, all the research says that it's a wash and the two factors balance out.

Ah ok, do carry on then