The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[steve50]

What is the difference between a life changing pedestrian head injury and a life changing cyclist head injury?
Non..........that I know of.

No-one has yet given a valid reason why one hurts less, is less traumatic, or one should be "prevented' and not the other
Invalid argument imo.
Cyclist v pedestrian no contest, pedestrian travels average speed 4mph on the pavement for the majority of the time.
cyclist travels on roads average speed anywhere from 10 to 20+ mph or more, cyclist moves alongside traffic, filters through traffic and can achieve speeds in excess of 40mph downhill, therefore by default the cyclist is at greater risk of injury whether they wear a lid or not.


We get lots of dismissal as it is far easier than facing the difficult point that there is no coherent argument for one being prevented and not the other.

 

[mjr]

pedestrians do not walk at speeds in excess of 25mph or walk among moving traffic on our public roads other than to cross the road.

Are you a townie? Most roads don't have footways so pedestrians are walking among moving traffic... maybe not in excess of 25mph but nor are most cyclists.

 

[snorri]

what I would expect from all of you who debate strongly against wearing helmets.

Who are these people who deplore free choice?
Name and shame.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

(Warning Hyperbolic Rhetoric Ahead) More people cycle in Copenhagen every day than do in the whole of England*

What do these people, in all their "dress for the destination not the journey" splendour know, that the UK pro-helmet lobby don't? Surely all cph- ers are not stupid reckless fools who don't give a feck and desperate for a serious head injury?

And trust me they may be slow of the mark when the lights change but these gals and guys fly once they get into their stride.

*may not actually be true but I can't be a*s*d to look up the numbers, and this is a post-truth thread.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Oh yeah, and look how many of the riders are women! Unlike the UK.

 

[Justinslow]

As far as that goes, that is all perfectly understandable. The issue is more complex though, and the fact is that helmet wearing disproportionately portrays cycling as a dangerous activity.

It was dangerous for him though wasn't it?

 

[Justinslow]

I am sorry but I have never really understood what it is you are arguing on this point. Average risks is what it is about.
When people subdivide risks they get it all the wrong way around. The other day, for instance, I was in a bike shop in Amsterdam. A local cycling club came in, they had road bikes, Lycra, and helmets. One of them told me that he normally road a Dutch city bike in normal garb. The decision made is that the higher speed necessitates the helmet. This ignores the fact that the helmets' rated ability to absorb energy is exceeded at the higher speed.

Does this mean it doesn't work at the higher speed? Go 1 mph faster and all of a sudden it's useless?

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 4279975, member: 45"]This is the bit where it follows to interrogate the stats (were the pads crossing the road or drunk? Were the cyclists careering down a mountain track? etc), but some people don't like to go there.[/QUOTE]

The point is that we can only prevent a head injury when it occurs.

When we look at Cohort studies the evidence is unquivocal that more head injuries would be prevented, lives saved and costs to the NHS saved by targeting the groups who suffer the injuries.

One typical study (Thornhill) states :

The most common causes of injury were falls
(43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved
(61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous
head injury.

 

[Justinslow]

(Warning Hyperbolic Rhetoric Ahead) More people cycle in Copenhagen every day than do in the whole of England* View attachment 128383 View attachment 128384 View attachment 128386 View attachment 128387 View attachment 128388 View attachment 128389 View attachment 128390



What do these people, in all their "dress for the destination not the journey" splendour know, that the UK pro-helmet lobby don't? Surely all cph- ers are not stupid reckless fools who don't give a feck and desperate for a serious head injury?

And trust me they may be slow of the mark when the lights change but these gals and guys fly once they get into their stride.

*may not actually be true but I can't be a*s*d to look up the numbers, and this is a post-truth thread.

Errrr the third picture clearly shows rather a lot of riders wearing helmets.

 

[mjr]

Ben comes onto the forum and proves his helmet saved his life, his helmet has been destroyed completely by the impact but he survived albeit with head injuries but he survived nontheless. But all of you who are so strongly opposed to wearing helmets choose to mock and make sarcastic comments, how very mature (sarcasm intended).

I made no sarcastic comment, but like most rabid helmeteers, you like to pretend that I don't exist, that no-one gets hurt by helmets and that there is no reasoned logical argument against those evil hats!

Who are these people who deplore free choice?
Name and shame.

I think wearing cycle helmets should be banned outside of racing. It's frowned upon to wear motor racing helmets for ordinary driving (and claimed to be illegal in some places, but I didn't find confirmation of that) and the same should apply to wearing helmets for ordinary cycling.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Errrr the third picture clearly shows rather a lot of riders wearing helmets.

I can't believe someone took the bait.

The helmet wearers? It shows a few, not rather a lot. And as for that few apart from two, one of whom is on a tall bike, the others, to an man, woman, and child, are in team/club kit. Because they are team/club riders. Out on a team/club ride. And obliged by their need to ape their professional counterparts to wear helmets, and lycra. Thus demonstrating that they are serious cyclists. Adrift. In a sea of normal people, wearing normal clothes, doing normal things, like riding a bike. For which no special equipment is required here. Unless you are a bit odd.

Because here, and this is the point, wearing a helmet to ride a bike around the city is very, VERY, odd.

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
We're going to have to wade through a few pages and Delete a whole load of posts, as talking about the qualifications of First Responders, along with some other topics over the last few pages, is so far off topic, it is to cease now.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Never mind that, what's going on in the photo below?

Matey in the blue jacket obviously fancies the Helen Lederer lookalike, whilst chummy in the shades to the right thinks she's giving him the eye. Except she's trying to hook up with the blonde woman in sunglasses in the centre of the pic.

Flirting and or lusting and or actually coping off with someone at the lights here is perfectly normal. I work with someone who met her wife at the lights before the Langebrø when riding in from Amager

At the crossing outside work one can fall in lust several times a minute, and one gets the uneasy feeling, from returned eye contact and fleeting smile, that it isn't all in your head.

If you look at the last picture Sarah Beeney clearly likes a man in a sloppy cap.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

MOD NOTE:
We're going to have to wade through a few pages and Delete a whole load of posts, as talking about the qualifications of First Responders, along with some other topics over the last few pages, is so far off topic, it is to cease now.

let it ride.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I can't believe you can't believe someone took the bait. It was obvious not only that someone would but who that would be.

Fair cop. I planted it with some deliberation.