The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Are you genuinely saying pedestrians should wear helmets even though they are near ineffective (not totally ineffective though, we know that)?

Again a demonstration of ignorance about helmets and effectiveness

Cycle helmets are in fact far better designed and more effective in the low speed impacts such as a pedestrian fall. Whereas in a race or MTB event then they are far less effective as they are outside their design and test parameters

Please. please don't tell me you were unaware of this reality

What I am saying is that only a hypocrite would suggest that cyclists need to wear helmets, but then not apply the same standard to a pedestrian suffering a similar injury

Apart from avoiding the question with the desperate "Its a cycling forum" care to explain why in an identical event a cyclist should be wearing a helmet and "prevent" a head injury, yet a pedestrian doesn't need to and the resultant head injury is acceptable

 

[ufkacbln]

except you don't wear a helmet !

Lets prove your ignorance?

Helmet Shapes

I use a Specialized Evade which is a racing helmet, but has the attributes of the "Rounder Smoother Safer " design

My "Spare" is a Giro Aspect - again a smoother rounded design

 

[srw]

those best able to assess the risk, the riders.

I wasn't aware that the majority of professional cyclists were trained statisticians or epidemiologists. You learn something every day.

 

[Justinslow]

Lets prove your ignorance?

Helmet Shapes

 

[Justinslow]

Lets prove your ignorance?

Helmet Shapes

Oh dear, at odds with this aren't you?

Compulsion is just one extreme end of a spectrum. Every helmet wearing cyclist projects an image of cycling as a dangerous activity. It all adds up to a negative overall effect.

And isn't comments like this pretty much telling me not to wear one?

 

[theclaud]

Oh dear, at odds with this aren't you?


And isn't comments like this pretty much telling me not to wear one?

You know Cunobelin and Adrian are different people, right?

 

[Justinslow]

You know Cunobelin and Adrian are different people, right?

Yes but both supposedly singing from the same hymn sheet?

 

[theclaud]

Yes but both supposedly singing from the same hymn sheet?

Only in your little head.

 

[Justinslow]

Only in your little head.

It's quite big actually, (more prone to accidents involving the head)?

 

[theclaud]

It's quite big actually, (more prone to accidents involving the head)?

Liddists. Always banging their enormous heads on stuff.

 

[ufkacbln]

Oh dear, at odds with this aren't you?


And isn't comments like this pretty much telling me not to wear one?

Not at all, firstly no-one has told you not to wear one, what has happened is that your claims have been shown to be invalid or ridiculous. In most cases you have not been able to defend them

As to being at odds?

if you look the ground is covered in white stuff, this is called snow and ice

There is an increased risk and some people will not go out, or take additional precautions

This is called "an informed choice" one that is made on evidence, personal risk assessment and not on spurious claims or emotional tripe that so many pro-helmeteers thrive on

Here is anoher image - no white stuff, a diferent machine, so a different level of risk, and hence no helmet

 

[Justinslow]

Not at all, firstly no-one has told you not to wear one, what has happened is that your claims have been shown to be invalid or ridiculous. In most cases you have not been able to defend them

As to being at odds?

if you look the ground is covered in white stuff, this is called snow and ice

There is an increased risk and some people will not go out, or take additional precautions

This is called "an informed choice" one that is made on evidence, personal risk assessment and not on spurious claims or emotional tripe that so many pro-helmeteers thrive on

Here is anoher image - no white stuff, a diferent machine, so a different level of risk, and hence no helmet

That's all very well, but if a helmet is not going to be "effective " in its supposed use why bother just because there's a bit of snow on the ground? In your logic, based on the evidence, the helmet will still be just as in effective as if there were no snow on the ground.
Nice pic by the way, cool errrr......bike.

 

[Mugshot]

Do you need telling which you are, again?

I hope he does, the suspense is killing me!

 

[Arrowfoot]

So because so many people copy other people for no scientific reason, that in itself is a reason to join them?
The UCI made helmet wearing mandatory against the wishes of those best able to assess the risk, the riders. It was a knee jerk reaction to an event where it is unlikely a modern helmet would have made a discernable difference. Surprisingly they haven't come up with a way to protect collarbones.

But carry on wearing a plastic hat and then bemoan that there aren't enough people cycling to achieve critical mass necessary to change how infrastructure is developed

I know the mantra - everyone else is ill formed, susceptible to marketing and prone to social compliance.

 

[ufkacbln]

That's all very well, but if a helmet is not going to be "effective " in its supposed use why bother just because there's a bit of snow on the ground? In your logic, based on the evidence, the helmet will still be just as in effective as if there were no snow on the ground.
Nice pic by the way, cool errrr......bike.

I think that the way forward here is simply to reference the earlier posts where these points have already been made, I will only give one reference as all these points have beenmade (and ignored) on several occasions

See post 2011:

Cycle helmets are in fact far better designed and more effective in the low speed impacts such as a pedestrian fall. Whereas in a race or MTB event then they are far less effective as they are outside their design and test parameters

Please. please don't tell me you were unaware of this reality