The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

They always say this. It doesn't make it true though.

You're right I could have made the whole thing up......

 

[Mugshot]

That's a good post. But, how many accidents has Steve Abraham had in all his miles - not many apart from the ankle? A family "pootling" as you call it are just as likely to have some or none if my kids are anything to go by! My son practicing his skids, my daughter not so brave wobbling about, other cyclists coming the other way, a canal path could be a very dangerous place! I just don't think the world is "black or white" and accidents can happen anywhere and at any time. Nice post though.

I'm rather surprised that you view the risks of a family pootle in the same way as you do a fast chain gang. I'm not quite sure of the point you're making about Steve either I'm sorry.
I don't think the world is black and white either, but by wearing a helmet for all cycling activities you are rather suggesting that it is. To me you are suggesting that cycling in all it's forms is an activity so inherently dangerous that it is necessary to wear specific safety equipment for when the inevitable happens, there aren't many shades of grey in that.

 

[Mugshot]

I'm not sure why it matters, but no I wasn't.

Proof if ever it were needed that a wooly hat is more effective that a cycle helmet.

 

[martint235]

How do you get them to stay put? And don't they mess up your hair?

Lots of elastic bands

 

[Licramite]

On that basis , if I wore a sheep on my head I would be invulnerable !

 

[Justinslow]

I'm rather surprised that you view the risks of a family pootle in the same way as you do a fast chain gang. I'm not quite sure of the point you're making about Steve either I'm sorry.
I don't think the world is black and white either, but by wearing a helmet for all cycling activities you are rather suggesting that it is. To me you are suggesting that cycling in all it's forms is an activity so inherently dangerous that it is necessary to wear specific safety equipment for when the inevitable happens, there aren't many shades of grey in that.

I mention Steve as he has completed a lot of miles on busy roads without "too many" accidents! Surely much more risk than most cyclists. So to say "only wear a helmet in high risk cycling" is farcical, an accident can happen anywhere and pretty much at any time.

 

[Justinslow]

I'm not sure why it matters, but no I wasn't.

It's a bit like saying "I had an accident in my car the other day and I wasnt wearing my seatbelt and I didn't die", meaningless. There are severities of accidents but we still are required by law to wear a seatbelt.

 

[Profpointy]

It's a bit like saying "I had an accident in my car the other day and I wasnt wearing my seatbelt and I didn't die", meaningless. There are severities of accidents but we still are required by law to wear a seatbelt.

The post your replying to was presumably tongue in cheek, although also making a serious point. We all know many many people whose helmets "saved my life" but conversely we don't know anything like as many who have been killed (sadly I do know a few, but not many) - thus it is implausible than more than a tiny fraction of the helmet-crashes have actually saved lives - unless of course helmet wearers have a lot more crashes. I guess they would hit their heads nearly twice as often purely due to size of helmet.

 

[Mugshot]

I mention Steve as he has completed a lot of miles on busy roads without "too many" accidents! Surely much more risk than most cyclists. So to say "only wear a helmet in high risk cycling" is farcical, an accident can happen anywhere and pretty much at any time.

Ah I see, so you're using Steve as an example of why there is little to no need to wear a helmet.

 

[Justinslow]

Ah I see, so you're using Steve as an example of why there is little to no need to wear a helmet.

You know that's not what I meant, don't be a troll, or you will be barred remember!

 

[Profpointy]

It may not be what you wanted it to mean but it is pretty much what is being shown, on an anecdotal basis.

to be fair I wasn't sure whether you saw Steve in the risky or low-risk camp.

Given he's (I understand) not hit his head despite doing nothing but cycle, eating & sleeping and I've hit my head a couple of times in normal everyday life (nothjng serious - cut by kitchen cupboard and such) that shows cycling is less dangerous than normal life.

 

[Mugshot]

You know that's not what I meant, don't be a troll, or you will be barred remember!

Hardly trolling Justin, just trying to highlight what seem to me to be some inconsistencies.

You have used Steve as an example and suggested that what he is doing puts him at;

Surely much more risk than most cyclists

But you have also quite correctly said that

he has completed a lot of miles on busy roads without "too many" accidents!

To the best of my knowledge he has been knocked off by the scooter which resulted in the broken ankle and he has been brought down by another cyclist, which resulted in the other cyclist suffering from a broken pelvis, I think.

But you also seem to suggest that a family outing down the canal path carries similar risks and as a result requires special protective gear in the same way that fast, close quarters group riding does.

So I don't quite understand what you mean when you say;

"only wear a helmet in high risk cycling" is farcical

Are you saying that all cycling is high risk?

 

[benb]

I mention Steve as he has completed a lot of miles on busy roads without "too many" accidents! Surely much more risk than most cyclists. So to say "only wear a helmet in high risk cycling" is farcical, an accident can happen anywhere and pretty much at any time.

Like when out walking for example?

 

[Profpointy]

Like when out walking for example?

yebbut only for high risk walking surely?

Whilst I am teasing, walking up Mont Blanc might qualify for the latter category

 

[swansonj]

I know we don't like the evidence thing but there is a fair amount that demonstrates the safety benefits of seat belts, sufficient to justify compulsion. There is no corresponding evidence demonstrating a safety benefit for cycle helmets.

Oh dear. Do I or don't I? Oh, go on, I will.

For those of us who look at the evidence on cycle helmets with a reasonably open mind, one key factor is that when helmets were made compulsory (eg in Australia), there was no reduction in cycling injury rates (in fact an increase). So, we argue, whatever benefit they may have in specific incidents, there must be other factors in play that compensate.

Car seatbelt use in the UK increased by about fifty percentage points almost overnight when compulsion was introduced. The curve of injury rates (which was falling steadily anyway), however, showed no discernible change at that point.

A parallel line of reasoning, therefore, would question the view that there is sufficient evidence of the (net) safety benefit of seat belts to make them compulsory.

I have been shouted down every time previously I have made this point and am fully prepared for this to happen again. It is, I suspect, seen as unhelpful to the cause of rational debating of helmets to throw in something so far outside the orthodoxy as challenging seat belts. But it would be hypocritical to insist on addressing the evidence, and on acknowledging the role of risk compensation, in one area but rule it out of order in another.