Reasons not to wear helmets

[Angelfishsolo]

RL, to be fair, I think you're being a bit inflexible here. If Risk Compensation works to decrease inhibitions, it can also work to increase inhibitions. A driver mincing along because he's got a 6" spike in the middle of his wheel would be compensating for increased risk by altering his behaviour, just as a rider thrashing it down a mountain because he's wearing a plastic hat he thinks is the equivalent of a neonatal dip in the River Styx would be compensating for perceived risk reduction. Compensation works both ways.

And, also in the spirit of fairness, confusion and disorientation can result from shock, although I would agree that it's a primary symptom of concussion. I would expect to see it in instances of shock caused by blood loss, however, rather than the emotional aftermath of a crash. When I did first aid many years ago, we were taught that shock technically referred to reduction in blood flow to the brain and emotional shock was something different, although in my most recent first aid course they looked at me like I was bananas when I mentioned this.

If we're expecting decent discussion on this topic we need to be willing to account for misunderstandings and differing interpretations instead of assuming everything is a counter-argument.

Sam

Thank you very much indeed.

 

[Bicycle]

Please don't comment on the whys and wherefores of this - this has already been done to death - although by all means if you have something to add please do so.

What I'd really like to know is whether there are any other common objections / reasons why we don't wear helmets?

Thanks,

Tim

Staying with the question posed by the OP:

I have three reasons, all of which can be shot down in flames and none of which could ever be called an objection:

1. Nothing (for me) deals with a low sun as well as the peak of a casquette lowered over the brow.

2. I was raised in a pre-helmet age and that is a hard mentality to shake off.

3. Occasionally, I prefer the feel of a casquette or (in winter) a Cap Comforter. Both offer better comfort, deal better with sweat and allow me to scratch occasional itches.

Having said that, I often wear a helmet; but those are my main reasons for the occasions whan I don't.

 

[Mad at urage]

The only occasions where I have had children run out infront of me is when I have been on a cycle path on the promenade where I live.

Once when I was in Rhos-on-Sea, a child ran out from a car. I had to skid to avoid him. I told his mother that I had nearly gone into him and she apologised politely. I was doing about 27mph when I had to brake.

Secondly, I was in Rhyl. A child was running around the cycle path and decided to walk into my path. Once again I just missed him but this time the parents were a bit more unconcerned. They chose to shout abuse at me when I was explaining that he shouldnt be in the cycle path and they should be taking more care of him.

Children are the worst because parents neglect to take responsible care for them. I am lucky I had my whits about me and aavoided them both.

The most common feature of a concussion is confusion.

The most common symptoms of shock include:

• A fast, weak pulse
• Low blood pressure.
• Feeling faint, weak or nauseous.
• Dizziness.
• Cold, clammy skin.
• Rapid, shallow breathing.
• Blue lips.

Yes I am a first aider I do appreciate this. As the blue underlined sentences say "the most common". I said it "can be a result of......"

So do I get an apology for

as I am right about risk compensation and

Signs and symptoms of shock
Depending on the cause, some of the symptoms and signs of shock may include:

• Pale, cold, clammy skin
• Shallow, rapid breathing
• Difficulty breathing
• Anxiety
• Rapid heart beat
• Heart beat irregularities or palpitations
• Thirst or a dry mouth
• Low urine output or dark urine
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Dizziness
• Light-headedness
• Confusion and disorientation
• Unconsciousness.

AFS, out of interest (as a first aider myself): When you come across someone who has had a head injury, is possibly suffering from shock and is confused and disorientated; would you simply treat them for shock or would you suspect a possible concussion and get them to A&E to be checked out?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

AFS, out of interest (as a first aider myself): When you come across someone who has had a head injury, is possibly suffering from shock and is confused and disorientated; would you simply treat them for shock or would you suspect a possible concussion and get them to A&E to be checked out?

I would assume concussion.

 

[Red Light]

RL, to be fair, I think you're being a bit inflexible here. If Risk Compensation works to decrease inhibitions, it can also work to increase inhibitions. A driver mincing along because he's got a 6" spike in the middle of his wheel would be compensating for increased risk by altering his behaviour, just as a rider thrashing it down a mountain because he's wearing a plastic hat he thinks is the equivalent of a neonatal dip in the River Styx would be compensating for perceived risk reduction. Compensation works both ways.

I semi-agree. The driver with the 6" spike illustration is maintaining their risk level by driving more cautiously against an increased risk to them if they have an accident (aka risk homeostasis. The only way in which the drivers risk goes down is if the risk they perceive is greater than the real risk or the protection their perceive is less than the real protection. But Angelfishsolo has told us many times he believes a helmet provides good protection, especially mountain biking so that option is not really available to him to propose.

And, also in the spirit of fairness, confusion and disorientation can result from shock, although I would agree that it's a primary symptom of concussion. I would expect to see it in instances of shock caused by blood loss, however, rather than the emotional aftermath of a crash.

I agree but shock does not really apply to Angelfishsolo's description. In the sort of shock we are talking about the confusion is a result of hypotension and blood not getting to the brain. At that point you main observations about them would not be that they were confused.

If we're expecting decent discussion on this topic we need to be willing to account for misunderstandings and differing interpretations instead of assuming everything is a counter-argument.

Sam

There is only so long that you can make that allowance. Yes we all get things wrong from time to time but how long do you go on making allowances before you move to considering it willful?

 

[Ravenbait]

Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Or, more diplomatically, it's more productive to assume inocent ignorance and misunderstanding than to label someone as a troll. Once you have decided that someone is a troll, the only thing you can do is stop feeding him and walk away from the conversation. Only trolls think that having the last word means winning an argument.

Sam

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I agree but shock does not really apply to Angelfishsolo's description. In the sort of shock we are talking about the confusion is a result of hypotension and blood not getting to the brain. At that point you main observations about them would not be that they were confused.

At which point did I say it was my main observation? I'm sorry I didn't give a few overview of his condition after the crash but I am not that anal. I could have stated the type of bike, the type of helmet, the type of tyres, the weather conditions, damage to other parts of the body but is didn't seem necessary.

 

[ufkacbln]

Bleedin' sexist man.

Is there any other type?

 

[mickle]

Is there any other type?

Yes.

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes.

You mean married ones?

 

[Cyclopathic]

http://www.yakkay.com/ ?

Thanks. This might just convert me.

 

[John90]

I'm looking for some answers to the helmet question but got more than I bargained for on this forum. Is it fair to say that:

There is little evidence that helmets protect against serious/fatal injury?
There is reasonably good evidence that helmets protect against less serious head injuries?
Compulsion may discourage cycling and thereby increase the risk for those cyclists that remain.
There's a hypothesis, but little evidence, that cyclists who wear helmets may take more risks and that drivers may be less cautious when engaging with cyclists who wear helmets.


Is the above relatively uncontroversial? I'd be really grateful if someone could direct me to a thread or site that gives a good synopsis of the issues and research findings without all the 'ad hominems' and 'anecdotals'.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm looking for some answers to the helmet question but got more than I bargained for on this forum. Is it fair to say that:

There is little evidence that helmets protect against serious/fatal injury?
There is reasonably good evidence that helmets protect against less serious head injuries?
Compulsion may discourage cycling and thereby increase the risk for those cyclists that remain.
There's a hypothesis, but little evidence, that cyclists who wear helmets may take more risks and that drivers may be less cautious when engaging with cyclists who wear helmets.


Is the above relatively uncontroversial? I'd be really grateful if someone could direct me to a thread or site that gives a good synopsis of the issues and research findings without all the 'ad hominems' and 'anecdotals'.

That is a good summation of the belief.

Good luck on finding an unbiased website or even thread. I don not believe one exists.

 

[david k]

Hi John,

I think that is a fair summary

I'm looking for some answers to the helmet question but got more than I bargained for on this forum. Is it fair to say that:

There is little evidence that helmets protect against serious/fatal injury?

It is agreed that they have their limitations, i dont think many people would consider them life saving in a serious collision

There is reasonably good evidence that helmets protect against less serious head injuries?

Not sure there is, I think its just an expeirnced based assumption, and one that I would agree with

Compulsion may discourage cycling and thereby increase the risk for those cyclists that remain.

Compulsion would probably lead to less cyclists, and could therefore make it more dangerous for those still cycling as drivers awareness is decreased, less respect to cyclists etc. However, this could be improved with more driver awareness schemes, adverts, training etc, this could possibly reverse the negative affects or overcome them and improve them

There's a hypothesis, but little evidence, that cyclists who wear helmets may take more risks and that drivers may be less cautious when engaging with cyclists who wear helmets.

IMo this is dubious. Redlight agreed that the significance of this is so small it really doesnt make an affect

Is the above relatively uncontroversial? I dont think so
I'd be really grateful if someone could direct me to a thread or site that gives a good synopsis of the issues and research findings without all the 'ad hominems' and 'anecdotals'. Difficult I suspect as I have found it difficult to discuss these points with some people on here. It seems that some cannot remain civil, when I pointed this out I was told "That is life" As such an atitude remains despite attempts to keep it civil the debate falls into farcical mickie taking and debating of minor side points for pages of posts. If an unbiased conversation exists I would also like to take part, I await with interest any replies of such reasonable debate.

 

[ufkacbln]

Is the above relatively uncontroversial? I'd be really grateful if someone could direct me to a thread or site that gives a good synopsis of the issues and research findings without all the 'ad hominems' and 'anecdotals'.

One of the better sites is US based (and pro helmet) Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute

This goes into a lot of the pro-helmet stuff, but isn't afraid of admitting that there are issues, design failures, and that helmets are not the magic bullet some would have us believe.

As for controversial - not at all the debate is very simple:

All pro helmet advice anecdotes and evidence is sacred and should be believed implicitly
Anything that does not agree with this is "anti helmet" anti freedom of choice and the work of the Antichrist.

:troll: