The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[CaadX]

Huh??? I think you'll find that those of us who don't wear helmets tend to go about our lives happily. We only engage when the pro-helmet fraternity post the usual "my helmet saved my life" post. Usually, it must be admitted, with a sense of deja vu and no real hope of receiving any meaningful debate or evidence to support the claim.

We will wait and see what Giro have to say shall we ?

 

[martint235]

I will.

Interesting you think that way, Indeed large organisations are leading the way , however I believe you are up against something far more powerful and in a large part impossible to fight, hence the Bowie line earlier. Cycling is constantly evolving and developing. Some people will be left behind or sidelined. Whether or not helmets do anything is irrelevant, all the matters is the Pros wear them and the vast majority want to look like the pros even if they cant ride like them.

We will wait and see what Giro have to say shall we ?

Pros don't wear them by choice though. If questions aren't asked about evidence we probably will end up with compulsion in the same way the pro peloton has.

I'm am actually very interested to hear what Giro have to say. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks it will be "Sorry your helmet broke. Here have a new one, this one is lighter and has more vents"

 

[CaadX]

Pros don't wear them by choice though. If questions aren't asked about evidence we probably will end up with compulsion in the same way the pro peloton has.

I'm am actually very interested to hear what Giro have to say. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks it will be "Sorry your helmet broke. Here have a new one, this one is lighter and has more vents"

I am about to go riding so I will reply but it will be later, but I will just say that again whether the pros are compelled or not is irrelevant they do and that is all the matters.

 

[MontyVeda]

I am about to go riding so I will reply but it will be later, but I will just say that again whether the pros are compelled or not is irrelevant they do and that is all the matters.

No! it's entirely relevant.

 

[mjr]

Pros don't wear them by choice though.

When was it that Contador was spotted riding in a race without one? That it was seen seemed as much to do with the TV cameras not politely looking away as usual, perhaps because it was Beefy Bertie.

And don't get me started on the number of pros who show their dislike by helmet straps dangling so loose, it'll move if they nod vigorously, let alone crash.

 

[martint235]

When was it that Contador was spotted riding in a race without one? That it was seen seemed as much to do with the TV cameras not politely looking away as usual, perhaps because it was Beefy Bertie.

And don't get me started on the number of pros who show their dislike by helmet straps dangling so loose, it'll move if they nod vigorously, let alone crash.

And these are the people who possibly crash more often than the rest of us. They probably want collar bone protection really but instead are forced to wear helmets.

I can't remember how the UCI got away with making them compulsory. I know it was gradual in that at first they didn't have to wear them when climbing. There was also a lot of noise about strikes etc iirc.

 

[Tin Pot]

I am about to go riding so I will reply but it will be later, but I will just say that again whether the pros are compelled or not is irrelevant they do and that is all the matters.

It's not irrelevant!

I have to buy and wear a helmet to take part in events under the same rules.

And because regular bike helmets slow you down, I've got to buy an aero helmet that will overheat my sweaty head.

So slower, hot
vs
£100s plus hotter
vs
just as safe, cooler and no expense

 

[Fab Foodie]

I will.

Interesting you think that way, Indeed large organisations are leading the way , however I believe you are up against something far more powerful and in a large part impossible to fight, hence the Bowie line earlier. Cycling is constantly evolving and developing. Some people will be left behind or sidelined. Whether or not helmets do anything is irrelevant, all the matters is the Pros wear them and the vast majority want to look like the pros even if they cant ride like them.

I disagree.
Only a certain segment of cyclists want to look like pros (who only wear helmets because they are told to), but the rest do it because they believe it enhances their safety .... About which point the debate revolves.

Out of interest, when did you take up cycling?

 

[mjr]

I can't remember how the UCI got away with making them compulsory.

Following in the footsteps of the NZ anti-choice lawmakers, the UCI cynically exploited a death to ram through removing freedom of choice: that of Andrei Kivilev at 2003's Paris-Nice: http://oldsite.uci.ch/english/news/news_2002/20030312_comm.htm - in a multi-bike pile up in a peloton going full gas through a town, chasing a breakaway down to the foot of the final climb. I don't remember the crash and I didn't find footage of it but that race was televised so it might exist, but written reports seem unclear what hit his head (and thereby whether a helmet is likely to have helped) and some say he died of brain trauma rather than the skull fracture and almost no-one wears anti-concussion helmets... and all this is focusing on one case rather than the general trends.

Safety of professional racers recently could probably be improved much more by better training and stronger restrictions for the supporting motorists who drive with them - another racer was knocked down by a motorcyclist at KBK last weekend, with sufficient force it destroyed the moto's wing mirror and broke the racer's collarbone and a rib http://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/...omplaint-with-the-belgian-cycling-federation/

 

[Mugshot]

I try to keep an open mind on everything you should try it sometime.

How do you come to the second conclusion or was it just a throw away remark ? Perhaps the irony didn't come across Eh ?

I'd love you to show me where I haven't kept an open mind, and if you're suggesting that "Duh, a helmet saved my life, it's totes obvs innit, LOL!!!" is keeping an open mind, well maybe that's the irony you're referring to.
No it wasn't a throw away remark, your first contributions clearly demonstrated that you had little to no understanding of the debate and that you had quite clearly not read through this thread or any of the archived ones, your "helmet saved life" statement is clear evidence of this. In your more recent post you have said that you are not convinced, that's quite an about face and the most likely explanation is that you've taken the time to educate yourself a little.

 

[CaadX]

No! it's entirely relevant.

Only to you and people campaigning against them.

 

[martint235]

I am about to go riding so I will reply but it will be later, but I will just say that again whether the pros are compelled or not is irrelevant they do and that is all the matters.

Only to you and people campaigning against them.

You didn't go very far then......

 

[CaadX]

I disagree.
Only a certain segment of cyclists want to look like pros (who only wear helmets because they are told to), but the rest do it because they believe it enhances their safety .... About which point the debate revolves.

Out of interest, when did you take up cycling?

We will have to agree to disagree.
Strava seem to be doing rather lol
The 3rd part is again irrelevant.

 

[CaadX]

You didn't go very far then......

Does that have some bearing on the issue or is it a cheap attempt to belittle me ?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Only to you and people campaigning against them.

We're not campaigning against them ... Just trying to put their safety value into perspective ....