Reasons not to wear helmets

[Ravenbait]

You are conflating dismissal of the argument with dismissal of the object.

The argument "hitting my head against a wall hurts less when wearing a helmet ergo helmets are good and I shall wear one when cycling" is the same as the argument "hitting my head against a wall hurts less when wearing a melon/fruitbat/dead cat/pillow strapped to my head ergo I shall wear the aforementioned object when cycling."

In other words, if that is your primary reason for wearing a helmet, you would be as well to wear any one of a number of objects that will have the same effect when you hit your head against a wall.

This does not demonstrate that a helmet is a good idea or a bad idea, only that deliberately banging your bare head against a wall hurts.

All of which boils down to: if that's your best reason for wearing a helmet, you need a better argument if you're going to persuade anyone who is dubious, especially those who think it's a far better idea simply to avoid hitting their heads in the first place.

Sam (now adding to the rapidly extending set of conditions necessary to continue this discussion the difference between "argument" and "opinion")

 

[Red Light]

Ive already answered to cunos post, just read it again and tell me why a melon having a (claimed) same affect means a helmet is as useful as a piece of fruit, and that aint childish, do me a favour

Both a helmet and a cantaloupe would perform equally well at avoiding pain in the thought experiment you proposed. It seems you proposed it to demonstrate the efficacy of helmets and if so why hasn't it demonstrated the equal efficacy of a cantaloupe? What conclusions did you want us to draw from your test and why do they not apply equally to a cantaloupe?

 

[benb]

I've got a question.

Being a pedestrian is at least as likely to result in a head injury as cycling.

People that choose to wear a helmet when cycling, do you also wear one when walking or running? If not why not?

No-one has answered this satisfactorily.

 

[GrasB]

An interesting response from a friend who does research how bones break & protecting against this. To paraphrase his response - Helmets in general(not specifically cycle helmets but motorcycle helmets, horse riding helmets, etc.) have an unfortunate property of restricting the amount of flexing the skull can do. This can lead to skill fractures where otherwise there wouldn't be or an increase the risk of concussion/brain injury after an impact, cycle helmets are more likely to give rise to this type of scenario at the impact point they absorb less energy than it would take to deform the skull & have a tendency to disintegrate in a localised area.

Further to this he had a bit of a rant about doctors who are unqualified to give properly informed opinions of what would have happened with/without 'safety' equipment. They are specialists in dealing with the medical consequences of an accident that doesn't mean they have any concept of the physics & bio-mechanics involved in the body dealing with this kind of thing. It's a different field of expertise, but due to a doctor having that medical background people tend to give strong weight to their opinions.

 

[mickle]

You are conflating dismissal of the argument with dismissal of the object.

The argument "hitting my head against a wall hurts less when wearing a helmet ergo helmets are good and I shall wear one when cycling" is the same as the argument "hitting my head against a wall hurts less when wearing a melon/fruitbat/dead cat/pillow strapped to my head ergo I shall wear the aforementioned object when cycling."

In other words, if that is your primary reason for wearing a helmet, you would be as well to wear any one of a number of objects that will have the same effect when you hit your head against a wall.

This does not demonstrate that a helmet is a good idea or a bad idea, only that deliberately banging your bare head against a wall hurts.

All of which boils down to: if that's your best reason for wearing a helmet, you need a better argument if you're going to persuade anyone who is dubious, especially those who think it's a far better idea simply to avoid hitting their heads in the first place.

Sam (now adding to the rapidly extending set of conditions necessary to continue this discussion the difference between "argument" and "opinion")

Well that was a damn fine flogging, but I suspect the horse is still dead.

 

[mickle]

An interesting response from a friend who does research how bones break & protecting against this. To paraphrase his response - Helmets in general(not specifically cycle helmets but motorcycle helmets, horse riding helmets, etc.) have an unfortunate property of restricting the amount of flexing the skull can do. This can lead to skill fractures where otherwise there wouldn't be or an increase the risk of concussion/brain injury after an impact, cycle helmets are more likely to give rise to this type of scenario at the impact point they absorb less energy than it would take to deform the skull & have a tendency to disintegrate in a localised area.

Further to this he had a bit of a rant about doctors who are unqualified to give properly informed opinions of what would have happened with/without 'safety' equipment. They are specialists in dealing with the medical consequences of an accident that doesn't mean they have any concept of the physics & bio-mechanics involved in the body dealing with this kind of thing. It's a different field of expertise, but due to a doctor having that medical background people tend to give strong weight to their opinions.

My candidate for post of the day.

 

[Dan B]

Well that was a damn fine flogging, but I suspect the horse is still dead.

The beatings will continue until morale improves

 

[Red Light]

An interesting response from a friend who does research how bones break & protecting against this. To paraphrase his response - Helmets in general(not specifically cycle helmets but motorcycle helmets, horse riding helmets, etc.) have an unfortunate property of restricting the amount of flexing the skull can do. This can lead to skill fractures where otherwise there wouldn't be or an increase the risk of concussion/brain injury after an impact, cycle helmets are more likely to give rise to this type of scenario at the impact point they absorb less energy than it would take to deform the skull & have a tendency to disintegrate in a localised area.

Further to this he had a bit of a rant about doctors who are unqualified to give properly informed opinions of what would have happened with/without 'safety' equipment. They are specialists in dealing with the medical consequences of an accident that doesn't mean they have any concept of the physics & bio-mechanics involved in the body dealing with this kind of thing. It's a different field of expertise, but due to a doctor having that medical background people tend to give strong weight to their opinions.

That aspect has been raised elsewhere particularly in respect of children whose skulls are much more able to distort to absorb an impact (designed that way by a few million years of evolution, children tripping and falling a lot and all that) but the adult skull is remarkably flexible if it needs to be.

It is maybe one of the reasons for the disparity between the absorption capacity of a helmet of 90-100J and biomechanical measurements of the human skull done back in the 1940s which came up with 700-1000J to fracture a skull.

 

[mickle]

This is what I'm about to ride home. Integrated front and rear crash protection zones preclude the need for a helmet.

 

[Davidc]

An interesting response from a friend who does research how bones break & protecting against this. To paraphrase his response - Helmets in general(not specifically cycle helmets but motorcycle helmets, horse riding helmets, etc.) have an unfortunate property of restricting the amount of flexing the skull can do. This can lead to skill fractures where otherwise there wouldn't be or an increase the risk of concussion/brain injury after an impact, cycle helmets are more likely to give rise to this type of scenario at the impact point they absorb less energy than it would take to deform the skull & have a tendency to disintegrate in a localised area.

Further to this he had a bit of a rant about doctors who are unqualified to give properly informed opinions of what would have happened with/without 'safety' equipment. They are specialists in dealing with the medical consequences of an accident that doesn't mean they have any concept of the physics & bio-mechanics involved in the body dealing with this kind of thing. It's a different field of expertise, but due to a doctor having that medical background people tend to give strong weight to their opinions.

While this isn't evidence for or against helmet wearing it is as valid an argument as any I've ever seen for helmets not being worn. Thank you.

I've memorised most of it as a suitable response next time SWMBO complains about me not wearing mine. (The only reason I wear one at all is to keep her happy. I'm reasonably sure I'd be dead if I'd been wearing one in the worst crash I've ever had, however that is just as much anecdotal as the usual pro helmet anecdotes).

 

[ufkacbln]

and again......so your trying to make the point that helmets are not worth wearing because a melon would do the same job
People on building site should not wear hard hats because a melon would also protect them, using your logic

when you struggle to understand the concept of safety you result into poking fun, thats when you know you have run out of things to say

Totally wrong... the point is that in this experiment the same result is achieved.

Ok, as this is proving difficult for you, lets rephrase the experiment:

lets make it even simpler

I pay a bill with a £ 5 note and the bill is settled

I pay a bill with 5 £1 coins and the bill is settled

The result is the same..

Does this mean that I am now stating that no-one should use £5 notes?

 

[benb]

Totally wrong... the point is that in this experiment the same result is achieved.

Ok, as this is proving difficult for you, lets rephrase the experiment:

lets make it even simpler

I pay a bill with a £ 5 note and the bill is settled

I pay a bill with 5 £1 coins and the bill is settled

The result is the same..

Does this mean that I am now stating that no-one should use £5 notes?

I'd give up if I were you, he's being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Red Light]

I'd give up if I were you, he's being deliberately obtuse.

Too kind

 

[ufkacbln]

This is what I'm about to ride home. Integrated front and rear crash protection zones preclude the need for a helmet.

Isn't that "grasping at straws?"

Still even so, you can always lend an ear, and always bale out of the argument if you fail to harvest sufficient information.

 

[david k]

Totally wrong... the point is that in this experiment the same result is achieved.

Ok, as this is proving difficult for you, lets rephrase the experiment:

lets make it even simpler

I pay a bill with a £ 5 note and the bill is settled

I pay a bill with 5 £1 coins and the bill is settled

The result is the same..

Does this mean that I am now stating that no-one should use £5 notes?

i get your example, i get your point, im not trying to be difficult despite what you feel, i honestly dont agree with your interpretation, not sure theres any more mileage in this, i guess we just dont agree