The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[benb]

You might want to change your avatar.

Yeah, I had no choice in that one!

 

[ufkacbln]

absolutely... fashion (AKA cycling chic).

... and somewhere to hang their helmet cam

 

[Justinslow]

Nope - it is perfectly fine for people to make an informed decsion.

It is equating higher risk activities to low risk activities and trying to justify the same "need" in the lower risk

This message is clear throughout, make your own informed decision on your risks and activities.

... and for the umpteenth time, you have yet to justify your absurd claim that you have been told not to wear one.

Anybody reading reading through this entire thread can see the underlying theme that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets according to the "usual suspects"

But what about the evidence!
Your helmet at low speed in whatever conditions will still be useless! The evidence tells us that doesn't it? Either they are worth wearing or they are not?

Now I am sure that you're just trolling. No one could really be proud to be as stupid as you appear to be.

sarcasm doesn't really come across very well on here does it?

 

[ufkacbln]

Anybody reading reading through this entire thread can see the underlying theme that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets according to the "usual suspects"

But what about the evidence!
Your helmet at low speed in whatever conditions will still be useless! The evidence tells us that doesn't it? Either they are worth wearing or they are not?

sarcasm doesn't really come across very well on here does it?

Nope anyone reading this thread will realise that you are incapable of accepting that helmets are only tested and approved in slow speed impacts,yet you continue to avoid reality with claims as above

The other thing that they will realise is that the emphasis is on informed choice, again this requires a level of understanding that seems elusive for you


I "practice what I preach"

The difference between us is that I am not suggesting anyone else should wear a helmet in ice and snow because I have decided to do so, nor have I suggested anyone should not wear a helmet in good weather because I chose not yo

My helmets are rated higher than EN1078 (usually Snell rated), do not have snag points, complying with the rounder, smoother , safer ethos and most important the decisions are informed

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes those must be the reasons for @Cunobelin wearing one........

I am unsure whether this is a spectacular failure to understand or a desperate attempt to avoid the facts

 

[totallyfixed]

Some light relief
Baffling how the hospitals cope with the huge amount of head injuries in winter in Holland, for you @Justinslow.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMv3OB6XHvQ

 

[growingvegetables]

Anybody reading reading through this entire thread can see ...

... that you haven't? At least, not with any apparent intention to understand what others are writing.

 

[Profpointy]

mmm - think some of you are not now playing fair with Justin. Unlike many,perhaps most liddites, he's genuinely debating and quite properly pointing out some of the falacies and inconsistencies of the sceptics. Maybe he's not yet convinced, and quite wrong on a few things - but pointing out that wearing a helmet when riding on ice, isn't so far off his own position of wearing a helmet when dangerously cycling in a race.

Of course a bigger sceptic, maybe myself, could suggest that the bigger head / rotational injury problem is common to both "risky" cycling scenarios. To wear a helmet in a "risky" does suggest the wearer believes they ar beneficial.

There's nothing per se wrong with deciding to wear a helmet for this but not that - but you can't really criticise justin for wearing them for that but not this.

As justin's maybe the only pro-h in history to even debate slighly properly I do feel I need to back up his sensible points just as would robustly challenge the bogus ones.

And for that matter call another poster an arse when justified by his contribution

 

[ufkacbln]

Hang about, and I'll fish out the magic tossing coin.

Unfortunate choice of phrase

 

[ufkacbln]

mmm - think some of you are not now playing fair with Justin. Unlike many,perhaps most liddites, he's genuinely debating and quite properly pointing out some of the falacies and inconsistencies of the sceptics. Maybe he's not yet convinced, and quite wrong on a few things - but pointing out that wearing a helmet when riding on ice, isn't so far off his own position of wearing a helmet when dangerously cycling in a race.

The difference is extrapolating this to suggest that an average leisure cyclist in good weather should wear one

Of course a bigger sceptic, maybe myself, could suggest that the bigger head / rotational injury problem is common to both "risky" cycling scenarios. To wear a helmet in a "risky" does suggest the wearer believes they are beneficial.

Again the difference is the extrapolation riding slowly on ice does not correlate to fast ride on an MTB or racing. This is the issue, the refusal to accept that different cyclists have different risks and helmets due to their design have different contributions.

Put simply.... riding slowly on ice -helmet, but if I was racing on ice I would not bother as it is outside the design parameters

There's nothing per se wrong with deciding to wear a helmet for this but not that - but you can't really criticise justin for wearing them for that but not this.

Absolutely, it is the continual claims that this high risk activity extrapolates to average use that is the issue, and the refusal to recognise the weakness of this fallacy

As justin's maybe the only pro-h in history to even debate slighly properly I do feel I need to back up his sensible points just as would robustly challenge the bogus ones.

And for that matter call another poster an arse when justified by his contribution

Feel free

 

[Profpointy]

The difference is extrapolating this to suggest that an average leisure cyclist in good weather should wear one



Again the difference is the extrapolation riding slowly on ice does not correlate to fast ride on an MTB or racing. This is the issue, the refusal to accept that different cyclists have different risks and helmets due to their design have different contributions.

Put simply.... riding slowly on ice -helmet, but if I was racing on ice I would not bother as it is outside the design parameters





Absolutely, it is the continual claims that this high risk activity extrapolates to average use that is the issue, and the refusal to recognise the weakness of this fallacy



Feel free

I agree with some, but not all.

If,and maybe a big if as I'm on 2nd pint now, both you and justin have made a judgement that this or that type of cycling is more risky, your positions are similar at least in philosophy even if "this" or "that " is in dispute. You also both seem to share the view that, helmets are indeed helpfull for certain types of cycling, albeit different types - but the princiole remains. This is a very different thing from believing that helmets help in some types of collision but not others.

To be fair I don't really see a logical inconsistency between extrapolating between low and high risk activity. thus, it's not illogical to say tha lewis hamilton wears asbestos pants so it would be beneficial to also wear em driving on the m6. This is merely a where to fraw the line question. I'd be glad of asbestos pants if my car caught light driving up the m6, even though I'd probably.take.the risk and not bother.

The key question is whether (cycle) helmets are actually helpfull, whether racing, riding on ice, or pootling to the shops. Where you then decide to wear em is different question - which parallels the lewis hamilton asbestos pants question

Similarly I also challenge the view that cycle helmets are good but beer drinking helmets are silly. They are different questions but good for comparison - assuming, perhaps weongly that either is of any benefit. Jason as reasonably avoided being drawn on this, just as I would avoid the comparison with motorcycle helmets as I have not got the evidence against the latter. I save the beer drinking helmets comparison for others who deserve the mockery of their tdf riders comparison.

Any how I think justin's mostly been playing fair, and not trolling and has debated in good spirit - sometimes straightforwardly and sometimes with a bit of mischief as have I.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remain a convert to the sceptic view

 

[Profpointy]

You are too generous.

at some risk of damning with faint praise compare justin's posts (most of em anyway) and the standard "serves your right if you become a vegatable" thing we usually get from certain quarters. The distinction should be acknowledged

 

[broadway]

Some light relief
Baffling how the hospitals cope with the huge amount of head injuries in winter in Holland, for you @Justinslow.

No helmets were harmed during the making of this video.

 

[Profpointy]

Yes, Justin has correctly identified that his riding with his kids at slower speeds is less risky than his riding wheel to wheel at speed with cub mates. No, that doesn't make a helmet the solution in the second case though, because the speeds are outside a helmet's tested design parameters. Any belief that a helmet will be beneficial in a higher speed impact is just that, a belief.

I agree with that, and not Justin However Justin has quite priperly contended that someone else (cunobelin maybe ? ) wearing a helmet on ice but not otherwise was making a similar judgement - and thus in a sense acknowledging that helmets help. This is then a "what is risky" question not " are helmets" helpfull. question

I don't share this view but the logic is sound

 

[Profpointy]

If the logic is sound, why don't you share the view?

you know what I mean so I'm not getting into that