Paper Helmets

[User482]

Have you remembered to correct for Calvinism?

Unkraut to the thread!

 

[theclaud]

Unkraut to the thread!

He disapproves of those with what he thinks of as an unnecessary preoccupation with helmet.

 

[Linford]

Is that a promise to not post any more? Oh please, let it be so....

You are a one you little minx

 

[jonesy]

[QUOTE 2876921, member: 45"]Honestly, when I've spoken to people who have said that cycling is far too dangerous, it's always been about being on the same busy roads as fast cars, trucks etc. No-one has ever said to me that it's clear that it's dangerous because people have to wear helmets.[/quote]
But you wouldn't expect them to. The perceived danger comes from the traffic, not the helmet, but that doesn't mean the wearing of helmets doesn't highlight that perception. I wouldn't put that as an argument not to wear one, but we still need to be aware of the possibility.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I often get told by non-cyclists that I'm 'brave' for cycling on the road with the traffic - and the very next thing they always say is, 'Do you wear a helmet?' The implications are obvious, and made unthinkingly in most people's minds.

I hear plenty of cyclists telling newbies and non-cyclists that cycling is dangerous and that a helmet is a must .... you'd be mad not too ....

 

[Fab Foodie]

[QUOTE 2877038, member: 45"]

So how do we get people to focus on the likelihood rather than the severity? .[/quote]

I thought this an excellent attempt at explanation .....
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

I don't think there's a good answer. There are far more resources out there aimed at making people buy and wear helmets than one could possibly take-on with anything like simple evidence or explanation of risk. A campaign would be a waste of time. People just ain't that logical.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to work on small victories in the same way as it's hard to get people out of their cars and onto bikes/busses/trains etc. My take is a dellzeqqian approach, the more we can normalise cycling as an everyday commonplace activity like walking, the fewer people will wear helmets as the perception of risk decreases.

 

[Linford]

I often get told by non-cyclists that I'm 'brave' for cycling on the road with the traffic - and the very next thing they always say is, 'Do you wear a helmet?' The implications are obvious, and made unthinkingly in most people's minds.

Wearing a helmet doesn't reduce the risk of getting run over by others on busy roads.

We could try this again, and hope it doesn't get derailed like last time? http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

"In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk."

Many single vehicle falls are not reported...especially when they are caused by the riders own actions ..'my cycle lid avoided a trip to the hospital' becomes a non event. How many times do we read on here about people having an off, and then saying that they need to replace the lid they trashed.

Do I buy all this...'but the my head wouldn't have connected with the ground if I weren't wearing a lid' nonsense...no I don't. It takes a lot of force to break a cycle lid...the rider will most likely have a headache, but that doesn't mean they will go straight to the hospital with it.

The anti argument is too quick to dismiss mitigation with these devices. This new lid can do a lot of mitigation. I think the anti's are just anti for the sake of it because it cuts into the perceived freedom they feel they might have when on 2 wheels....

 

[ufkacbln]

Welcome back...

no what about your claim that the foam cover is a helmet?

t

Do I buy all this...

The anti pedestrian argument is too quick to dismiss mitigation with these devices. This new lid can do a lot of mitigation in pedestrian head injuries. I think the anti's are just anti for the sake of it because it cuts into the perceived freedom they feel they might have when on 2 feet....

FTFY

 

[Linford]

Welcome back...

no what about your claim that the foam cover is a helmet?



FTFY

The difference in momentum between a pedestrian and a cyclist at their respective speeds blows you pov out of the water...

 

[ufkacbln]

Can I just confirm that?

Your claim (repeated even after it was unequivocally proven to be wrong) that a foam cover was a Snell B95 rated helmet invalidates any value of helmet use in pedestrians?

Even for you that is a bizarre claim

You were totally wrong and giving misleading information even after you were shown your mistake

 

[ufkacbln]

PS - given your Google and quote skills - did you actually read Goldacre's article end you realise that you have again undermined your own claims!

 

[Mugshot]

Can I just confirm that?

Your claim (repeated even after it was unequivocally proven to be wrong) that a foam cover was a Snell B95 rated helmet invalidates any value of helmet use in pedestrians?

Even for you that is a bizarre claim

You were totally wrong and giving misleading information even after you were shown your mistake

Are you talking about post 295? My impression was that Linford posted it as a bit of a giggle. Do you honestly believe he was claiming it was a rated helmet or are you just stalking him? Either way it's extremely tedious.

 

[srw]

The number wearing is not the only factor obviously. A high number wearing just makes it easier to describe it as the norm and to marginalise disagreement.

I know I'm coming very late to this, and I've picked a post more or less at random to reply to. I appreciate there might be a link between helmet wearing and the view of politicians. But I suspect the correlation is weak, because policy is rarely made by evidence, it's made by pressure groups and emotion. Politicians are human like the rest of us, and they respond in human, irrational, emotional ways.

Yes, there are exceptions - seatbelts and motorbike helmets are possibilities (though it would be interesting to find out whether the emotion or the evidence came first - I suspect they were contemporaneous).

My best guess is that the success and the safety record of the Boris Bikes in London - in particular their success as a tourist attraction - has squished a mandatory helmet law for the foreseeable future. Any attempt to bring one in can be met with a simple statement - "You'll affect tourism." It doesn't have to be provable, as long as it's plausible.

 

[srw]

Lots of little steps? Like happily cycling about not wearing a helmet or hi viz. Like patiently explaining again and again why I don't wear a helmet any more (I used to). Like not joining in the Strava silly racing stuff all the time. Like not calling other people's bikes BSOs. There are campaigns, but there are also examples to be set.

Exactly. Which is why the response on here to things like this:
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-minister-even-females-could-ride-bikes.147510/ (The Guardian interview with the cycling minister) is so depressing, and why it's important to point out in response to this video: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/16/bike-blog-cycling-robert-goodwill-london (Guardian again - Peter Walker jumping red lights and shouting at pedestrians while apparently being nuanced about safety) that it doesn't help.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are you talking about post 295? My impression was that Linford posted it as a bit of a giggle. Do you honestly believe he was claiming it was a rated helmet or are you just stalking him? Either way it's extremely tedious.

It was pointed out that it was not a helmet and he continued to claim it was...... It is a standard ploy of his to make stupid posts and then claim they were jokes so he can flounce off and avoid the points ha has raised