The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

I haven't a clue how many, I wasn't into counting them. Also, I didn't state that it was only 'fatalaties' which thankfully were much less commonplace than non fatal injuries. In many fatal incidents with a cyclist, the injuries causing death are to other parts of the body/organs etc where a helmet or not would have made little difference to the outcome. It is more the case of the less severe and non fatal accidents/collisions where many of the head injuries sustained could have been prevented by the wearing of a helmet, and yes I've seen a lot.
I'm done with this now, like I've said - your choice, so you choose. Whatever you choose won't affect me now. Thanks for your input though.

...a nd the point being ignored because it is outside a very limited agenda

How many of the pedestrian and vehicle head injuries were "less severe and non fatal accidents/collisions" ... how many of the head injuries sustained could have been prevented by the wearing of a helmet, and why are they being accepted... of course impossible to answer as it destroys the absurd "wear a helmet when cycling or become avegetable" claims

 

[Mugshot]

It is more the case of the less severe and non fatal accidents/collisions where many of the head injuries sustained could have been prevented by the wearing of a helmet, and yes I've seen a lot.

Bollocks

 

[MontyVeda]

... It is more the case of the less severe and non fatal accidents/collisions where many of the head injuries sustained could have been prevented by the wearing of a helmet, and yes I've seen a lot.
...

I'm sure you have seen a lot in your line of work, but surely not all of them were cycling related. How many head injuries have you seen that didn't involve a bicycle? I'm sure it's also 'a lot'.

 

[gds58]

Bollocks

No, Head

 

[glenn forger]

Even without allowing for even distribution you must in your 30 years on the beat have seen an untold number of head injuries among public house customers. Presumably you stride up to people in Wetherspoons and say "Your head could be splatted over the floor with brains coming out" if they don't have a plastic hat on?

 

[gds58]

Even without allowing for even distribution you must in your 30 years on the beat have seen an untold number of head injuries among public house customers. Presumably you stride up to people in Wetherspoons and say "Your head could be splatted over the floor with brains coming out" if they don't have a plastic hat on?

what? bizarre comments!

 

[glenn forger]

So it's just cyclists that you pick on?

 

[Profpointy]

what? bizarre comments!

Seriously think about what people are saying here - you can agree or not, but at least try and think.
Is cycling more dangerous (head injury wise) than other everyday activites eg beer-drinking - in your line of work, we'd hazard a guess you've seen quite a few head injuries following (maybe excessive) beer drinking. If this is so, do you advocate beer drinking helmets ? If not, why not?
You can of course dismiss this as silly. But other than looking silly, is it silly really

I'm not advocating beer drinking helmets particularly, but that said it might be wise if you actually look at the risk.

The australia thing again - helmets really appear not to do any good on average - have you a view on this ?

Head bigger so you'll hit it more often - surely no-one can disagree with this.

My key questions on cycle helmets, or for any safety thing really.

1. Does it actually give a benefit on average (does good outweigh the bad)
2. Is the risk being mitigated (if indeed it is being mitigated) enough to be worth bothering with - compared to (say) being a pedestrian or going out drinking beer say.
3. Is the inconvenience of thing worth the bother (same point different way round). For me, wearing a helmet didn't bother me, but wearing full body armour or a full face helmet (as the Dentists' association seem to advocate) would be a complete nuisance. Ditto wearing one in Australia where it's bloody hot.
4. Is the cost of helmets justified for the benefit. So a helmet costs what £50 to buy, plus the "cost" of the extra 500g or whatever - which would be maybe £100 to £200 so to speak.

 

[srw]

The "making your head bigger" point is significant too. I've seriously heard people claim helmets don't make your head much bigger. Simple geometry suggests something between 50% and 100% bigger (cross-section area). And I do claim expertise in simple geometry having studied geometry beyond junior school. In fact I've a degree in maths, but that doesn't make me (more of) an expert as I didn't learn anything extra on areas of circles over and above 2ndry school; complex analysis, relativity etc yes, but no more simple geometry

Crikey. You're right. I'd never thought about it like that, but of course it is - the helmet adds 20% to 40% to the radius, which adds 50% to 100% to the area. And in certain kinds of collision it is the area that counts.

 

[Profpointy]

Crikey. You're right. I'd never thought about it like that, but of course it is - the helmet adds 20% to 40% to the radius, which adds 50% to 100% to the area. And in certain kinds of collision it is the area that counts.

I found it hard to fathom why helmets didn't seem to help much if all, yet it clearly hurt less if you're wearing one (eg caving). In caving you do hit your head more but only a biff rather than injury (banging head on ceiling rather than falls). I can quite imagine in the more serious knocks of a cycle accident doubling the hitting your head rate could well counteract even a quite effective helmet.

The exat balance is of course speculation. Bigger head is fact and don't help much if at all is fact. Whys and wherefores are speculation

 

[newfhouse]

My key questions on cycle helmets, or for any safety thing really.

1. Does it actually give a benefit on average (does good outweigh the bad)
2. Is the risk being mitigated (if indeed it is being mitigated) enough to be worth bothering with - compared to (say) being a pedestrian or going out drinking beer say.
3. Is the inconvenience of thing worth the bother (same point different way round). For me, wearing a helmet didn't bother me, but wearing full body armour or a full face helmet (as the Dentists' association seem to advocate) would be a complete nuisance. Ditto wearing one in Australia where it's bloody hot.
4. Is the cost of helmets justified for the benefit. So a helmet costs what £50 to buy, plus the "cost" of the extra 500g or whatever - which would be maybe £100 to £200 so to speak.

5. Does it convey an unhelpful message that an activity is dangerous when it is, in fact, beneficial?
6. Does encouraging helmets to become the norm - or even required - allow another road user to drive so poorly as to cause me injury but still find a way to blame me?

 

[martint235]

Been off the site for a couple of days. I see we have another cockwomble join us with illuminating comments such as "not scientific just hard fact".Confused the hell out of me as I always thought facts, hard or otherwise, were backed up by scientifically collected evidence.

I'm sure there was once a conversation along the lines of "You can't sail that way Chris. You'll fall off the earth. It's a hard fact."

 

[Justinslow]

Yet another arsehple wishing ill on other people for educational purposes

Have you actually read anything at all from the sceptical side. You sir are a completer arse. Sorry but there's no polite way of saying it

Dear oh dear oh dear, poor form chaps, Adrian I expect that from, but Profpointy, poor show.

 

[Profpointy]

Dear oh dear oh dear, poor form chaps, Adrian I expect that from, but Profpointy, poor show.

It was a justified response considering I war replying to a post based on ignorance and then insulting all those who disagreed - that said, drink had been taken I must confess

 

[Justinslow]

I see we have another cockwomble join us

No, just somebody with an opinion, which happens to be different to yours, some of you really are excelling yourselves with abusive comments, I thought better of you in engaging in decent debate but alas just nastiness seems to prevail.