The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

Look, I'm not for helmet compulsion, let's get that straight, and I'm not telling anyone else to wear one. I'm for wearing one when we want as its our choice, we make that choice as others have said based on many things. Yes sure the evidence supplied is interesting, but for me with the riding that I partake in I'm afraid I don't get a "hallelujah" moment.
I get the point @benb is making about evidence in NZ, but having ridden a motorcycle around that country I make the decision that for me it is nothing like the UK, the risk factor for me is higher in the UK regardless of whether the actual helmet is actually going to do any good, I will wear one based on my "life's experiences", if my trust in my helmets is misplaced then on my shoulders be it, it really doesn't bother me that wearing one may be a waste of time.
I'm sure many many other people share my views.

 

[benb]

Look, I'm not for helmet compulsion, let's get that straight, and I'm not telling anyone else to wear one. I'm for wearing one when we want as its our choice, we make that choice as others have said based on many things. Yes sure the evidence supplied is interesting, but for me with the riding that I partake in I'm afraid I don't get a "hallelujah" moment.
I get the point @benb is making about evidence in NZ, but having ridden a motorcycle around that country I make the decision that for me it is nothing like the UK, the risk factor for me is higher in the UK regardless of whether the actual helmet is actually going to do any good, I will wear one based on my "life's experiences", if my trust in my helmets is misplaced then on my shoulders be it, it really doesn't bother me that wearing one may be a waste of time.
I'm sure many many other people share my views.

Yeah, we get it. You don't care about evidence. You don't actually care whether the helmet is effective or not. I don't really understand why you don't care whether it works or not. But fine, you hold a religious position when it comes to helmets. That's completely up to you.

Just do us a favour. Stop pretending to be interested in the evidence when you're not.

 

[martint235]

Look, I'm not for helmet compulsion, let's get that straight, and I'm not telling anyone else to wear one. I'm for wearing one when we want as its our choice, we make that choice as others have said based on many things. Yes sure the evidence supplied is interesting, but for me with the riding that I partake in I'm afraid I don't get a "hallelujah" moment.
I get the point @benb is making about evidence in NZ, but having ridden a motorcycle around that country I make the decision that for me it is nothing like the UK, the risk factor for me is higher in the UK regardless of whether the actual helmet is actually going to do any good, I will wear one based on my "life's experiences", if my trust in my helmets is misplaced then on my shoulders be it, it really doesn't bother me that wearing one may be a waste of time.
I'm sure many many other people share my views.

So you now accept that it may not do any good but you're going to wear one because other people do? Does this not highlight one of the issues to you: that regardless of evidence those of us that choose not to wear a helmet are viewed with suspicion purely because so many people wear one "because other people do"?

 

[Justinslow]

So you now accept that it may not do any good but you're going to wear one because other people do? Does this not highlight one of the issues to you: that regardless of evidence those of us that choose not to wear a helmet are viewed with suspicion purely because so many people wear one "because other people do"?

Only that they "may not do any good" based on the evidence from Australia and NZ, based on my own anecdotal evidence they very much do some good. Helmets are available in the shops they are not illegal, you cannot blame me for what other people think of you for not wearing one, particularly when every sport involving bikes on the TV shows riders wearing helmets.

 

[Justinslow]

Yeah, we get it. You don't care about evidence. You don't actually care whether the helmet is effective or not. I don't really understand why you don't care whether it works or not. But fine, you hold a religious position when it comes to helmets. That's completely up to you.

Just do us a favour. Stop pretending to be interested in the evidence when you're not.

So you are calling the people I know who's heads have been protected by helmets liars? (And everybody else who's head has ever been less severely injured by the use of a helmet).

 

[martint235]

So you are calling the people I know who's heads have been protected by helmets liars? (And everybody else who's head has ever been less severely injured by the use of a helmet).

How do you know their heads have been protected by helmets? There's no evidence to show that helmets are any use in a cycle crash out on the road.

I crashed my bike a year or so ago while wearing a lycra top. I didn't damage my head ergo my lycra top saved my head. There is the same, reliable amount of evidence surrounding the use of lycra tops to protect your head as there is to suggest the "standard" polystyrene helmet protects your head.

 

[benb]

So you are calling the people I know who's heads have been protected by helmets liars? (And everybody else who's head has ever been less severely injured by the use of a helmet).

Where have I called anyone a liar? That's a pretty despicable accusation, and I ask you to retract it.

You don't know whether the people who were wearing a helmet when they crashed were saved from a more serious injury by the helmet. You can't know. So please stop pretending that you do know.

Like I said; you don't care about the evidence and you have a faith position with regard to helmets.

 

[benb]

Actually @Justinslow I'm quite angry that you have called me a liar. How dare you?

I am not the one who has ignored, dismissed, obfuscated and otherwise refused to engage in the evidence or the points raised, and nor am I the one who has whined and played at being some kind of persecuted victim just because your arguments were challenged.

I don't mind the fact that you choose to ignore the evidence shown to you; I do mind that you're calling me a liar for presenting it. Disgraceful.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
That is not to suggest that the purpose of this thread is to change minds.

I'd like to believe that this thread could change the perception of the level of protection that a bog standard polystyrene cycling hat provides. If you suffer an impact great enough to "turn you into a vegetable", that'll happen with or without a polystyrene hat. A polystyrene hat will 'save' its wearer from a bump or a graze or even needing a few stitches. It will not protect you from literally cracking your skull open.

 

[Justinslow]

Where have I called anyone a liar? That's a pretty despicable accusation, and I ask you to retract it.

Get over yourself, it's a question hence the question mark, are you saying everybody who's had an accident and had a helmet prevent more serious injury a liar?
That's a fair question, if helmets are completely ineffective how can anyone say they "did any good"? You are saying they are ineffective based on the evidence, so are all those people liars?

 

[Profpointy]

Actually @Justinslow I'm quite angry that you have called me a liar. How dare you?

I am not the one who has ignored, dismissed, obfuscated and otherwise refused to engage in the evidence or the points raised, and nor am I the one who has whined and played at being some kind of persecuted victim just because your arguments were challenged.

I don't mind the fact that you choose to ignore the evidence shown to you; I do mind that you're calling me a liar for presenting it. Disgraceful.

going for the hearts and minds type of pursuasion then?

 

[Justinslow]

And, once again, what of it? You tell us time and time again that you choose to wear one based on your perception. That is fine, it is your choice.

No, I will say that some may be right and their helmet did afford some level of protection, others will be wrong and it did no good at all. I will also say that none of them will really know whether it did or it didn't.

Well that's better than "ineffective" wouldn't you say?

 

[benb]

Get over yourself, it's a question hence the question mark, are you saying everybody who's had an accident and had a helmet prevent more serious injury a liar?
That's a fair question, if helmets are completely ineffective how can anyone say they "did any good"? You are saying they are ineffective based on the evidence, so are all those people liars?

My bold. No one can possibly know whether a helmet prevented a more serious injury. It's completely impossible to know this. So people who claim it has may or may not believe it, but they cannot know.

No one, least of all me, has said they are totally ineffective in all situtations. Just that the situations where they might have helped are so remote that we cannot detect it in the data. So overall they offer no statistically significant benefit.

 

[Justinslow]

Actually @Justinslow I'm quite angry that you have called me a liar. How dare you?

I think you probably need to re read the post again.
I'm not calling you a liar! I'm asking you if you are calling them liars!

 

[Justinslow]

My bold. No one can possibly know whether a helmet prevented a more serious injury. It's completely impossible to know this. So people who claim it has may or may not believe it, but they cannot know.

No one, least of all me, has said they are totally ineffective in all situtations. Just that the situations where they might have helped are so remote that we cannot detect it in the data. So overall they offer no statistically significant benefit.

So if they are not "totally ineffective" there must be some "effectiveness", good hey?