Please don't wear helmets*!!

[Profpointy]

My post was in response to the video posted.
You're suggesting a different situation to the one I responded too, so yes what about it?

I'm suggesting it's swings and roundabouts, which could explain why helmets don't seem to help overall even if they may be a great help sometimes - presumably balanced by causing considerable harm other tims

 

[david k]

I'm suggesting it's swings and roundabouts, which could explain why helmets don't seem to help overall even if they may be a great help sometimes - presumably balanced by causing considerable harm other tims

I agree in part, however I consider the benefits to outweigh the inconveniences and the video is a great example of this IMO

 

[Profpointy]

I agree in part, however I consider the benefits to outweigh the inconveniences and the video is a great example of this IMO

well maybe. The thing is are you cherry picking the examples where helmet is good and ignoring where bad? On average, eg Australia etc, they don't seem to help overall. I certainly used to feel safer wearing one (which in itself modified my riding for good or ill) - but no longer do as the "on average" evidence seemed to be what I should listen to

 

[david k]

well maybe. The thing is are you cherry picking the examples where helmet is good and ignoring where bad? On average, eg Australia etc, they don't seem to help overall. I certainly used to feel safer wearing one (which in itself modified my riding for good or ill) - but no longer do as the "on average" evidence seemed to be what I should listen to

Fair enough mate, we are free to make our own choice

Some people wear one when on a 50 mile ride on roads. It not for a 1 mile ride down a track to shops, that seems reasonable to me

 

[Profpointy]

Fair enough mate, we are free to make our own choice

Some people wear one when on a 50 mile ride on roads. It not for a 1 mile ride down a track to shops, that seems reasonable to me

maybe should be other way round?

Logically it might make equal sense to wear pedestrian helmets. It probably makes a lot more sense to wear beer-drinking helmets, but of course, no one does. Even if we really should wear pedestrian helmets it's not logically a reason for not wearing a cycle helmet.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Yes it's bubbled along quite nicely hasn't it.
Thanks for replying

No worries, had to stop and think which is always a handy exercise. My only commuting injuries have been legs anyway (an off on black ice, and a left hook where I didn't actually leave the bike). I'd actually be quite surprised if bicycles are allowed to share the road with driverless cars once they become the norm anyway. But compulsory segregation is a different argument :-)

I'm actually perfectly comfortable in my lid when I am wearing it (I blame untold miles on a motorbike) so don't find it any kind of burden or inconvenience which probably colours things although you wouldn't find me wearing it for an hour in a bar, like the woman who turned up for the R4 recording I was at last night (I think she only took it off as she sat down in the studio because she was worried the helmet and light on top would block the view of the row behind). I guess she could have taken the dangers of walking on board... :-)

 

[Lemond]

well maybe. The thing is are you cherry picking the examples where helmet is good and ignoring where bad? On average, eg Australia etc, they don't seem to help overall. I certainly used to feel safer wearing one (which in itself modified my riding for good or ill) - but no longer do as the "on average" evidence seemed to be what I should listen to

Does the Australian data single out the instances of head injuries specifically?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Even when the behaviour being argued has been proved?

OK, I'm not going to get in to a huge argument about this, but I'll give you the courtesy of a reply.

The way I work with people I know is that if someone else comes along and says X did Y and it seems out of character for them I'd probably question it (I might just shrug and go 'whatever' depends how 'bad' it was). If it was something I could check out, and I cared enough I might. I'd probably ask them ' what's the deal with Y' and we'd chat about it, depends how well I knew them. I think the natural response is to side with someone you know, if the behaviour seems out of character for how you believe them to be or call them a nobber if it turns out that's what they've been. The person I don't know protesting loudly about it all probably wouldn't hold much sway with me (depending on how they were going about it) and I'd prefer to work things out myself than assume more. Again, if it mattered to me at all.

In this particular instance it seems a very small number of people actually care and everyone else is looking on a bit slack jawed until they remember it's the internet and weird crap happens there.

 

[Drago]

Not a fall?
The road is soft?

Which leaves you with a helmet that works.

As soon as you find a cycle helmet design that demonstrably is proven to reduce the likelihood of death and serious injury then please let us know. Until then you may as well wear a saucepan or chandelier, because their proven level of head injury reducing ability is about the same.

 

[Profpointy]

Does the Australian data single out the instances of head injuries specifically?

I think the was the gist of it.

There was another discredited paper (possibky the now notorious Rivera Thompson one) where someone else reviewed their data using their methods and showed a link between helmet wearing and reduced lower leg injuries. Another "showed" helmet wearing protecting more people than were wearing helmets.

What swayed it for me wasn't the nuanced nit picking of some of these comedic correlations, but that there wasn't an obvious positive benefit that totally stood out - I found this surprising as they should "obviously" help, but somehow didn't help, or not much anyway.

The other strange (maybe not so strange) thing is the campaigning organisations quoting bogus numbers from known discredited research to bolster their case. If dishonesty is needed to persuade one wonders if there's any.truth in the notion at all.

Anyho, I don't wear one now for better or worse

 

[mjr]

“I feel alright. I head butted the wooden pole thing. Luckily, there was a barrier, which stopped me falling. I was all tangled up in the bushes and wire. Some guy pulled me up and I was all right. Some French people like us!”

Thomas’s helmet showed the scrapes of the dangerous head collision, but his humour proved he was still the same cyclist who helped Froome win the 2013 Tour.

I saw the crash helmet briefly on TV coverage and there were some cracks above the ear but no sign of an impact to the tested design area. He finished the stage without a crash helmet change AFAICT. I know it's simpler to say "headbutted" than explain the spinning impact in full, but he was initially reported as having "a bruised ear and sore left shoulder" which also doesn't sound like an impact right on the crash helmet, does it?

More importantly, are you campaigning for more of the "barrier, which stopped me falling"?

 

[Lemond]

Which leaves you with a helmet that works.

As soon as you find a cycle helmet design that demonstrably is proven to reduce the likelihood of death and serious injury then please let us know. Until then you may as well wear a saucepan or chandelier, because their proven level of head injury reducing ability is about the same.

Mine has done that three times in the past year alone. It's protected me from two flying stones and one low branch; in all three instances I suffered no pain, no injury and most importantly I didn't lose control of the bike for a second. I stayed upright and was able to cycle on. Had I not been wearing my helmet, both stone strokes would have put me down on the road, no question, and at the mercy of the traffic behind. I'd say the likelihood of death and serious injury were seriously diminished.

That said, I am under no illusion that there are dozens and dozens of scenarios where a helmet won't make a jot of difference to my chances of survival. But there are also dozens and dozens of other scenarios where it will definitely help. It all depends on the circumstances.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I saw the crash helmet briefly on TV coverage and there were some cracks above the ear but no sign of an impact to the tested design area. He finished the stage without a crash helmet change AFAICT. I know it's simpler to say "headbutted" than explain the spinning impact in full, but he was initially reported as having "a bruised ear and sore left shoulder" which also doesn't sound like an impact right on the crash helmet, does it?

More importantly, are you campaigning for more of the "barrier, which stopped me falling"?

It was definitely said on here that they changed the helmet with a spare from the car before he continued on. But I can't prove it...

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Mine has done that three times in the past year alone. It's protected me from two flying stones and one low branch; in all three instances I suffered no pain, no injury and most importantly I didn't lose control of the bike for a second. I stayed upright and was able to cycle on. Had I not been wearing my helmet, both stone strokes would have put me down on the road, no question, and at the mercy of the traffic behind. I'd say the likelihood of death and serious injury were seriously diminished.

That said, I am under no illusion that there are dozens and dozens of scenarios where a helmet won't make a jot of difference to my chances of survival. But there are also dozens and dozens of other scenarios where it will definitely help. It all depends on the circumstances.

Two stones and a branch? I think the 'helmets make your head bigger' brigade could probably have a field day with that one, unless both stones were going to hit you square in the forehead. It sounds like stuff that any old hat would have coped with. But then again, I wasn't there.

What do you do about the ones that hit your body? I presume if you've had three strikes to the head in the last year you've had some to the body too. You sound incredibly unlucky, I don't think I've ever been hit by flying debris that's much beyond an errant bumble bee and the only branch strikes have been on overgrown cyclepaths where they have scraped across the top of my helmet/hat at worst.

 

[Lemond]

Two stones and a branch? I think the 'helmets make your head bigger' brigade could probably have a field day with that one, unless both stones were going to hit you square in the forehead. It sounds like stuff that any old hat would have coped with. But then again, I wasn't there.

What do you do about the ones that hit your body? I presume if you've had three strikes to the head in the last year you've had some to the body too. You sound incredibly unlucky, I don't think I've ever been hit by flying debris that's much beyond an errant bumble bee and the only branch strikes have been on overgrown cyclepaths where they have scraped across the top of my helmet/hat at worst.

Not a chance.