The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[mjr]

From the terms and conditions: "It is mandatory that all riders wear a cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards [...] Giant Shoreham reserve the right to refuse entry to the event to anyone with inappropriate equipment or clothing." - ANSI Z90/4 has long been replaced by CPSC (the standard was withdrawn in 1994 and the Z90/4 committee was finally disbanded in 2003) and Giant's helmets don't comply with Snell (see http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C for full listing, but I think Specialized are the only ones widely-available in the UK).

Are the T+Cs wrong, or are Giant really going to disqualify anyone who isn't wearing a Specialized Snell-compliant helmet?

Comment, off-topic for the other thread: isn't it bloody scary how many helmet-forcing event organisers still refer to a 32-year-old standard from a committee that was disbanded 13 years ago? Many sportive organisers don't even care enough about safety to check what they're probably copy-pasting from another organiser's terms and conditions; and insurers don't care about helmets else they'd refuse to cover such clowns.

 

[ufkacbln]

No. Person A was indoors minding their own business and fell - pure accident. Person B was on a road surrounded by muppets in 2 ton steel boxes and was pushed - an accident, but a foreseeable risk.

They could be in a library full of partially sighted old age pensioners zooming around on mobility scooters, or teaher in a call room fullof speeding 5 year olds as well..........it does not alter the basic question.

We have two identical injuries with identical mechanisms and outcomes, yet one has an obligation to wear a helmet, the other doesn't... is that logical

 

[Racing roadkill]

No. Person A was indoors minding their own business and fell - pure accident. Person B was on a road surrounded by muppets in 2 ton steel boxes and was pushed - an accident, but a foreseeable risk.

By Jove, someone's seen the light

 

[Mugshot]

What makes the indoor risk foreseeable?

Isn't it the outdoor risk which was forseeable? As far as I can tell the person indoors was "minding their own business", whereas the person on the bike was, presumably, minding somebody elses, a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

 

[philepo]

"No. Person A was indoors minding their own business and fell - pure accident. Person B was on a road surrounded by muppets in 2 ton steel boxes and was pushed - an accident, but a foreseeable risk."

How is that relevant? Either you wish to mitigate against head injuries or you do not. If you do, and you believe that helmets are an effective mitigation, then it is astonishingly hypocritical to encourage cyclists to wear helmets without also encouraging pedestrians and people doing DIY to wear them.

It's relevant becasue the probability of falling is increased out on the road while in a position of 'readiness to plummet' which is what stretching forward is. The indoor example is of a person who is vertical and not in traffic. Bloomin eck, obtuse isn't the word.

They could be in a library full of partially sighted old age pensioners zooming around on mobility scooters, or teaher in a call room fullof speeding 5 year olds as well..........it does not alter the basic question.
We have two identical injuries with identical mechanisms and outcomes, yet one has an obligation to wear a helmet, the other doesn't... is that logical

Yes, two identical injuries, assuming that: the motor scooters weight 2 tons, have poor visibility in blind spots, are travelling at 40 mph and the person in the example is poised at a rakish angle where once they fall they have little chance of righting themselves (as is the case on a bicycle) FFS.
Yes, it is logical becasue one is unlikely and the other is encountered by me every day.

OK, I give in. Reading in a library is unsafe and smoking is not a cause of lung cancer, just look at my uncle nob head, he smoked all his life then got knocked off his bike by a speeding granny on a scooter. Nowt to do with the fags mate.

 

[benb]

It's relevant becasue the probability of falling is increased out on the road while in a position of 'readiness to plummet' which is what stretching forward is. The indoor example is of a person who is vertical and not in traffic. Bloomin eck, obtuse isn't the word.

More people suffer head injuries as pedestrians than as cyclists. If you are proposing a public health intervention, then you will always look at absolute risk rather than relative, so even if cycling is relatively more risky than walking, pedestrian helmets (assuming you are correct that they are effective) would save a lot more injuries if they were worn by pedestrians than by cyclists. yet you are suggesting only cyclists ought to wear them. Why?

Why are you only attempting to protect cyclists?

It's not me being obtuse: you need to demonstrate why it's worth protecting one group from head injury but not another. The fact that you cannot, and resort to straw man arguments is illuminating.

 

[Mugshot]

Ah right, thanks. I lost the un there.

It's extraordinarily complicated and I'm learning new things all the time, for example I've just learnt that when I'm on the bike I am;

in a position of 'readiness to plummet'

Now what's Richard Littlejohns catchphrase again?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Apologies if it's already been posted...

GC

 

[ufkacbln]

"No. Person A was indoors minding their own business and fell - pure accident. Person B was on a road surrounded by muppets in 2 ton steel boxes and was pushed - an accident, but a foreseeable risk."



It's relevant becasue the probability of falling is increased out on the road while in a position of 'readiness to plummet' which is what stretching forward is. The indoor example is of a person who is vertical and not in traffic. Bloomin eck, obtuse isn't the word.


Yes, two identical injuries, assuming that: the motor scooters weight 2 tons, have poor visibility in blind spots, are travelling at 40 mph and the person in the example is poised at a rakish angle where once they fall they have little chance of righting themselves (as is the case on a bicycle) FFS.
Yes, it is logical becasue one is unlikely and the other is encountered by me every day.

OK, I give in. Reading in a library is unsafe and smoking is not a cause of lung cancer, just look at my uncle nob head, he smoked all his life then got knocked off his bike by a speeding granny on a scooter. Nowt to do with the fags mate.

I always love the way the cyclist suffers greater and greater danger to the point where any trip they are virtually certain to become the victim of a homicidal maniac in a tank who is out to get them

...meanwhile the pedestrian's life becomes easier and easier to the point where they are never likely to suffer a head injury

Shame that cohort studies and the real life incidence of head injury is exactly the opposite, and A&E departments do not see significant numbers of cyclist head injuries (despite the homicidal maniacs in tanks) yet those poor pedestrians (cocooned in their safe lives) are the ones who are suffering the majority

Car drivers, motor cyclists, car passengers, motorcycle passengers and pedestrians all sufer a greater number of head injuries than cyclists

 

[ianrauk]

Apologies if it's already been posted...

View attachment 127161

GC

Always worth a repeat.

 

[MontyVeda]

...

Car drivers, motor cyclists, car passengers, motorcycle passengers and pedestrians all suffer a greater number of head injuries than cyclists

and of course... people reading this thread

 

[mjr]

It's relevant becasue the probability of falling is increased out on the road while in a position of 'readiness to plummet' which is what stretching forward is. The indoor example is of a person who is vertical and not in traffic. Bloomin eck, obtuse isn't the word.

Indeed, I feel that @philepo is being obtuse, suggesting that every cyclist is "out on the road while in a position of 'readiness to plummet' which is what stretching forward is". I ride the Dutchie in my current avatar, mostly sitting fairly upright with the bar ends where my hands would rest on a desk and often using cycle tracks. I hope that the likes of @philepo would agree that I am at about the same risk as a pedestrian and a cycle helmet would be unnecessary faff, expense and discomfort for most people.

 

[mjr]

You need a crate on that for the beer.

It sometimes has a crate on it, but the avatar pic was taken as I returned from the doctor's and I hadn't taken my beer there

 

[Venod]

I have never been anti helmet, sometimes I wore one (had to on club runs and competing) but if out on my own I never wore one, all change since I had an accident, broken shoulder badly damaged leg, but no head injuries, the only person who asked "were's your helmet" was a police woman, I was on my back in agony at the time, I think I must have have given her a what a tosser look as she immediatly said but you have no head injuries so it wouldn't have made a difference.

So why have I started wearing one? answer the wife insists even after I have pointed out pros & cons, so I am now £80 lighter after forking out for a Specialized Prevail I have always used cheaper slightly heavier helmets, but if I have to wear one all summer I want light & a good airflow, it doesn't feel any more comfortable than the cheap ones, but might be after a long hot day.

 

[Mugshot]

and of course... people reading this thread

Some certainly seem to, there does appear to be one side of the discussion that seems to bump their heads and generally fall off more often.