Petition to the Women's Institute

[Titan yer tummy]

There's no robust evidence that a cycling helmet will protect you from an injury requiring medical attention.

I am quite happy to wear one on the basis of the less than robust evidence.

I do not limit my concern to injuries requiring medical attention. If it protects me from light bruising that's good enough for me.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

......
That's rather callous.

Not at all everyone has the opportunity to make decisions about their own protection. If they fail to take the necessary precautions to avoid hurting or injuring themselves then I am entitled to feel peeved if I have to pay to treat or care for them.

 

[benb]

Not at all everyone has the opportunity to make decisions about their own protection. If they fail to take the necessary precautions to avoid hurting or injuring themselves then I am entitled to feel peeved if I have to pay to treat or care for them.

Do you drink? Have you ever smoked? Eat fatty foods?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Do you drink? Have you ever smoked? Eat fatty foods?

I believe I make sensible life-style choices which benefit both me and the world in which I live.

I do not feel I need to be anal about such choices. But I do think about what I do and why I do it, which in my book is being responsible. The very fact that you are a contributor to this site tends to suggest the same applies to you. Almost undoubtedly some of our lifestyle decisions are better than others, but the important thing is we use such grey matter as we have to apply such knowledge we have to sets of circumstances we encounter.

With regard to helmet wearing, I believe it pure common sense that a helmet affords protection to the wearers head. Arguments clearly exist about the amount of protection provided. I believe that those involved in this debate (on both sides) are selective about the evidence, they twist stats in support of their particular point of view.

I defy anyone to refute the statement: a cycling helmet protects the wearers head. For this reason I choose to wear one.

With that established I feel fully entitled to take issue with anyone who, being so stupid as to sustain a preventable injury by not wearing a helmet, expects me through the tax system to fund their treatment and recuperation.

With best wishes,

 

[Andy84]

With that established I feel fully entitled to take issue with anyone who, being so stupid as to sustain a preventable injury by not wearing a helmet, expects me through the tax system to fund their treatment and recuperation.

With best wishes,

Is the above in regards to pedestrians as well?

 

[benb]

With regard to helmet wearing, I believe it pure common sense that a helmet affords protection to the wearers head. Arguments clearly exist about the amount of protection provided. I believe that those involved in this debate (on both sides) are selective about the evidence, they twist stats in support of their particular point of view.

I defy anyone to refute the statement: a cycling helmet protects the wearers head. For this reason I choose to wear one.

With that established I feel fully entitled to take issue with anyone who, being so stupid as to sustain a preventable injury by not wearing a helmet, expects me through the tax system to fund their treatment and recuperation.

With best wishes,

There are plenty of activities where you are at least at as much risk of a head injury as cycling: walking, just wandering around the house, playing rugby. For at least the first two, people would look at you as though you were mad if you suggested wearing a helmet. Why? The risk is already tiny, so even if a helmet did offer some protection, it cannot significantly reduce the already tiny risk.

The evidence shows that cycle helmets do not offer significant protection against serious head injury. That is, they may well protect you from a bruise or cut, but people tend not to bother A&E about such minor injuries, and IMO the drawbacks of a helmet do not make that protection worthwhile. At the sort of impacts where a serious head injury becomes a likelihood (higher speed collisions, especially with motor vehicles), the energies exceed the specification of the helmet, so they do not help at all.

If you want to wear one, then that's fine - just don't pretend they offer much protection against serious head injuries, and don't you dare call people who disagree with you fools.

 

[MartinC]

I defy anyone to refute the statement: a cycling helmet protects the wearers head.

I refute that a cycling helmet any offers any realistic protection to the wearers head in a cycling accident because:
a. the wealth of available evidence suggests it doesn't
b. I've never seen a quantified rationale as to why a helmet conforming to the common standards (EN1078, CPSC, Snell B90) would be able to
b. common sense suggests that 300gms of ventilated EPS isn't capable of doing much

 

[MartinC]

With that established I feel fully entitled to take issue with anyone who, being so stupid as to sustain a preventable injury by not wearing a helmet, expects me through the tax system to fund their treatment and recuperation.

You haven't established it - it's merely your opinion. You need to make an objective argument to support it if you want public policy to reflect it

 

[Mad at urage]

This is obviously the thread to report an experiment I did some years ago.

Because cycle helmets are not tested with regard to the protection they would provide if in collision with another vehicle, I was interested in the relative protection given by different materials when struck by a lump of sharp metal. Now I don't have a test rig, but I did have a helmet that had been left around by someone who didn't want it any more. I also had a box of tissues.

I took the seatpost out of my (then one and only) bicycle (leaving the saddle attached as a convenient handle) and, on a tarmac surface, struck the helmet with the end of the seatpost. To my horror, it penetrated easily.

I repeated the experiment with a box of tissues. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the box of tissues completely protected the underlying tarmac from contact with the sharp metal!

Ever since then, I have worn a box of tissues strapped to my head. It provides more protection than a cycle helmet and therefore anyone who does not wear a box of tissues strapped to their head is an idiot (and I have the evidence to prove it). I shall campaign for it to be public policy that no cyclist with any injury whatsoever be treated with my tax money, unless they were wearing a box of tissues (in an appropriate place) when the injury occurred. In order to be consistent of course, the campaign will also ensure that the same is in place for pedestrians, car drivers, lorry and bus drivers ....

 

[Paladin - York]

I
Ever since then, I have worn a box of tissues strapped to my head. It provides more protection than a cycle helmet and therefore anyone who does not wear a box of tissues strapped to their head is an idiot (and I have the evidence to prove it). I shall campaign for it to be public policy that no cyclist with any injury whatsoever be treated with my tax money, unless they were wearing a box of tissues (in an appropriate place) when the injury occurred. In order to be consistent of course, the campaign will also ensure that the same is in place for pedestrians, car drivers, lorry and bus drivers ....

Must try this one!

At present I do wear a conventional cycle helmet & not the Kleenex variety, however, I seem to get attacked from "above". Last autumn I was "Isaac Newtoned" by an apple as I was passing under an overhanging apple tree and the other day I was "branched" on a ride out during the high winds we were having. It wasn't a huge branch, neither was the apple, but on each occasion I was happy to be wearing my nut case.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Is the above in regards to pedestrians as well?

A pedestrian is a very wide term isn't it? A person travelling on foot; a walker. adj. Many 'pedestrians' taking part in activities wear protective clothing including helmets - think some soldiers on street patrol, think uniformed beat policemen and women, think workmen on a building site. These people are, amongst other designations, pedestrians - viz. walkers!

With the usual good wishes

 

[Titan yer tummy]

And people in vehicles.

Please see and extrapolate my response to Andy84 above.

Kind regards

 

[Titan yer tummy]

There are plenty of activities where you are at least at as much risk of a head injury as cycling: walking, just wandering around the house, playing rugby. For at least the first two, people would look at you as though you were mad if you suggested wearing a helmet. Why? The risk is already tiny, so even if a helmet did offer some protection, it cannot significantly reduce the already tiny risk.........

Adidas Pro Rugby Helmet

With best wishes

 

[Titan yer tummy]

........The evidence shows that cycle helmets do not offer significant protection against serious head injury. That is, they may well protect you from a bruise or cut, but people tend not to bother A&E about such minor injuries, and IMO the drawbacks of a helmet do not make that protection worthwhile. At the sort of impacts where a serious head injury becomes a likelihood (higher speed collisions, especially with motor vehicles), the energies exceed the specification of the helmet, so they do not help at all.......

I suggest you are taking issue with a point I didn't make!

Yours etc.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

.....just don't pretend they offer much protection against serious head injuries......

I didn't and don't. Please read what I have posted more carefully.

......and don't you dare call people who disagree with you fools.

'Cap' and 'fits' in the same sentence. I am as entitled to my point of view as you.

Cheers