The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Equally detectors are a poor analogy

These are devices that give you an early warning and allows you to take action before the major issue arises

In the cycling world this is training and experience... Which IS proven to reduce accidents and therefore head injuries

ROSPA showed a 50% reduction in accidents when comparing children with and without training

But of course the helmet advocacy has no interest in reducing the requirement for a helmet by reducing the number of accidents, they would rather have the accidents and then alleviate the injuries that occur

 

[Profpointy]

Equally detectors are a poor analogy

These are devices that give you an early warning and allows you to take action before the major issue arises

In the cycling world this is training and experience... Which IS proven to reduce accidents and therefore head injuries

ROSPA showed a 50% reduction in accidents when comparing children with and without training

But of course the helmet advocacy has no interest in reducing the requirement for a helmet by reducing the number of accidents, they would rather have the accidents and then alleviate the injuries that occur

And some advocates actually ban kids from having training unless they wear a helmet. Seems that children's lives are a sacrifice worth making if it increases helmet wearing. I dare say this is a failure of logic rather that pure evil, but it's troubling to say the least

 

[mjr]

And some advocates actually ban kids from having training unless they wear a helmet. Seems that children's lives are a sacrifice worth making if it increases helmet wearing. I dare say this is a failure of logic rather that pure evil, but it's troubling to say the least

It's probably just as well: if they're victim-blaming the cyclists before they even get to the lesson, who knows what other rubbish they'll be teaching them? "And children, whenever a car is visible, you should dismount, remove yourself and your cycle to the verge and bow as the important motorist passes."

 

[Profpointy]

It's probably just as well: if they're victim-blaming the cyclists before they even get to the lesson, who knows what other rubbish they'll be teaching them? "And children, whenever a car is visible, you should dismount, remove yourself and your cycle to the verge and bow as the important motorist passes."

Admittedly it was maybe 45 years ago but I seem to recall being told to ride 12"-18" from the kurb. Norhing about taking the lane at pinch points. Always indicate - fair enough at one level - but I had to re-learn as an adult commuting cyclist that it's often dangerous to indicate left. It would be far safer to teĺl kids never to indicate left to be honest as the judgement to decide won't be there. I'm not even sure they emphasised front brake bias - and I half remember them telling me to use mainly the back -memory might be wrong on that point to be fair as it could have been my dad spouting bollocks.

Hoefully it's better theae days

 

[leahcim]

People say don't bother wearing a helmet because they have nothing to offer in the unlikely event of a crash. Like TMN says really.

So you're effectively adding up two unlikely events and making it worth a punt. It's very unlikely you'll crash and if you do it's incredibly unlikely your helmet will help.

Or to make it topical imagine not only Leicester winning the Premier League but Elvis scoring a hat trick for them in their final game

Like I said, people insure themselves against even more unlikely things than falling off a bike. Like I said these things happening to me may be rare (albeit not as rare as you're trying to kid yourself) - but them happening to someone is pretty much a guarantee.

i.e The chances of someone being involved in the accident you described is as likely as a football team winning the premier league and one of their players scoring some goals.

The difference is, as I said, perhaps, whether you care or not. If you only care if you have an accident and policy was decided on this basis then clearly you could dismiss many road safety ideas as unnecessary.

 

[Profpointy]

can I make a plea that we backtrack a bit from bickering? There's been quite a lot of good stuff on this thread - question, answer, refutation, yebbutt etc, but if it becomes an argument on who started the bickering all the fun will stop

 

[martint235]

Like I said, people insure themselves against even more unlikely things than falling off a bike. Like I said these things happening to me may be rare (albeit not as rare as you're trying to kid yourself) - but them happening to someone is pretty much a guarantee.

i.e The chances of someone being involved in the accident you described is as likely as a football team winning the premier league and one of their players scoring some goals.

The difference is, as I said, perhaps, whether you care or not. If you only care if you have an accident and policy was decided on this basis then clearly you could dismiss many road safety ideas as unnecessary.

You're deliberately missing the point. Yes accidents are guaranteed to happen. That's not being disputed. What is being debated is whether or not a helmet will assist in the accident (or hinder). There is no evidence to suggest it will and you banging on in an unrelated way about insurance doesn't change that

 

[srw]

Like I said, people insure themselves against even more unlikely things than falling off a bike.

You've moved from severity (how bad) to frequency (how many) pretty quickly.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...tics_Great_Britain_2013-14___PDF_Version_.pdf
There are about 40,000 house fires per year in the UK, in all of which insurance would have been useful. Many (?most) of those fires would have resulted in serious damage to the house. In addition, that insurance (depending on its wording) would have been useful against flood, theft, accidental damage and malicious damage.

That's about twice the total number of bike accidents per year (http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/). The overwhelming majority of those accidents are minor - in house insurance terms they're the sort of accidental damage of a carpet where you shrug your shoulders because you won't get anything back once you've paid your excess. Of the small minority of major ones an unknown, but pretty small, number are head injuries where a helmet might have helped. Of the ones where a helmet might have helped, no-one really knows what the true proportion is.

As @martint235 pointed out (The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread) if you want to use the insurance analogy a bike helmet is a bit like an insurance policy which covers you in such narrow circumstances that it's useless - the sort of insurance policy that the regulators wouldn't allow to be sold.

And as @User pointed out, you've got motor insurance wrong. The reason we make drivers buy insurance is because a ton of metal moving at 70mph poses a risk to everyone outside that metal box - the sort of risk which only massive financial compensation will sort out, not the sort of risk which individuals can protect themselves agains.

 

[martint235]

The post I replied to (I quoted it) didn't say anything about helmets or whether a helmet would assist or not. I accept that is part of what you've discussed but it's a fallacy to claim that is what is being debated as though nothing else is.

The risk of collisions was certainly part of the discussion (perhaps you didn't read it? Don't let newt find out he's keeping score) and was what I quoted from the post I replied to.

As I said though, I can see there's very little point discussing anything. You just want a bun fight.

The Cyclechat insurance debate is that way>>>>>>>>>

This is a debate about the merits or otherwise of wearing a helmet.

And can I be there when you meet User13710? I think you're in for a shock

 

[fossyant]

Let's wind it in folks !!!!!

Is this heat sending everyone loopy ?

 

[fossyant]

It seems that's the game you want to play.

Your choice. I can do polite or I can do t'internet forum

You can also get banned for trolling. Just saying.

 

[martint235]

Well, no they wouldn't because there are tens of millions of people. 322 people killed out of tens of millions is extremely safe.

Sheesh, if you disagree with the "extremely safe" then you're arguing with the wrong poster anyway. Look back and see, that was something I quoted from someone else. Not that I disagreed with what they said, I just don't buy it as a reason to wear or not to wear a helmet.

If there are good arguments for or against it that wasn't one. It seems you agree (or at least don't actually agree with them that things are "extremely safe" like driving)

So just for the sake of debate, what are your arguments in favour of wearing a helmet?

 

[fossyant]

As someone who wears a helmet, it's OK for a bit of gravel rash. It didn't stop a serious spinal fracture and 4 ribs. I was lucky to walk.

What did everyone say, despite me saying it's my back, not my head, not my neck..... fortunately the helmet came with me to the "serious" bit of A&E (accute care or whatever) - "no, look at my lid, it's not got a mark on it".

I have broken 2 helmets in crashes with cars, they did stop gravel rash, but didn't stop broken ribs or a busted shoulder.

 

[lutonloony]

Shame that there seems to be so much unrelated cr*p on this thread. I am genuinely interested in seeing the real pros and cons, but trundling through 213 pages seems quite an ordeal, when I have to read about houses on fire, difference between walking and cycling ( what if I'm pushing bike up a hill?)
Seen some nice scientific posts @McWobble , but very hard to find the useful bits in the main ( with no offence to those that have made useful contributions, and the odd bit inoffensive banter)

 

[Fab Foodie]

And can I be there when you meet User13710? I think you're in for a shock

It seems that in a thread containing much rancour, that a bit of cheeky humour is seen as innapropriate by the @Moderators ......