The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Profpointy

Legendary Member
But I don't need evidence if it's something I believe and makes me feel better and more confident, then I'm happy to wear one when I decide fit. If that confidence is mis placed then I guess that's my look out.

When I used to wear a helmet quite a few years back - I was an early adopter - I certainly felt more confident, and whilst there's an element of "risk compensation" I reckon it encouraged me to ride more assertively and maybe even more safely as a result. Who knows? That said, Hemel Hempstead in the '80s seemed much more agressive to cycling than Bristol in the 2010s.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
since the 'walking' comparison has been raised... I wonder why mountain rescue teams aren't advocating helmets for fell walkers. I bet they attend more head injuries than anything else, many of which could be easily prevented. That rocky or uneven ground the walkers tread makes the likelihood of a fall far higher than urban walking, especially if they're paying more attention to the panorama than their footing. I suppose helmets for fell walkers is a whole new thread though.
 
I wasn't using it as a supportive argument, just telling an anecdotal story of what happened as reported to me!
And by the way pretty much all accidents could be prevented if we lived in a sterile riskless world, but we don't.


... and accidents can be increased as well.

The argument here is that in this anecdotal case the risk WAS increased by riding in such a way that the falling rider could not be avoided.
 
Well not quite as my friend who had the crash will testify! I believe it helped him, so do many others.


... and from the same anecdotal evidence they were riding in a manner that increased the risk in the first place, and therefore their actions made the accident more likely.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Overall a good post untill the bit about climbing the stairs or drinking beer, nether involve combining your own actions with those of other road users travelling in some cases into three figure speeds, whether a helmet would help in a collision at over a hundred miles an hour I doubt, but the comparisons with drinking beer.......really.

yes really - think about it for a minute.

Beer drinking is associated very strongly with head injuries - yet anyone suggesting beer drinking helmets would be derided as an idiot. Your "combining with other road users" point is a complete non-sequitor. Surely what matters is risk of banging your head - considerably increased after drinking a lot of beer - especially in the company of others who've done the same.

Of course, I'm not really advocating any such thing - but logically perhaps we should. Either way comparison of risk in different activities is perfectly valid. I wouldn't be at all suprised if beer drinkers were more at risk of head injuries than cyclists - I dare say proven every Saturday night in casualty departments all round the country.

It might sound flippant or silly, but the point is a fair one
 
U

User33236

Guest
We frequently see statements along the line of 'exceeding what the helmet was designed for'.

I may be wrong here, (wouldn't be the first time!) but isn't is possibly that there is a difference between the design intentions of a helmet and the standard it was tested to?

For example are there helmets that have just managed to get over the bar set by the standards and others that have sailed over extremely comfortably?
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
'believe' being the operative word :smile:

to be fair I think the sceptic camp can be a bit too sceptical sometimes. I'm perfectĺy happy to believe helmets sometimes help, maybe even save the odd life. The key thing is whether this is balanced out by harm in other cases - and it does appear so based on the Austrlain case
 
U

User33236

Guest
There might be but who knows?
Thats really my question. Has any independent testing been down to 'test to destruction' or is it simply a series of tick boxes from a testing house and that's it?
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
to be fair I think the sceptic camp can be a bit too sceptical sometimes. I'm perfectĺy happy to believe helmets sometimes help, maybe even save the odd life. The key thing is whether this is balanced out by harm in other cases - and it does appear so based on the Austrlain case
I believe they'll sometimes help too. I believe they'll stop me from needing stitches but i doubt they stop me from literally cracking my skull (and they do nothing for brain slap). But as someone who's never worn a helmet for cycling, yet has also never seriously banged my head whilst cycling... I'm yet to feel the need. (This could change, who knows?). I do however carry a scar on my forehead which happened indoors whilst very very drunk and that, to date is my most serious injury head injury. I don't get very very drunk any more.
 
since the 'walking' comparison has been raised... I wonder why mountain rescue teams aren't advocating helmets for fell walkers. I bet they attend more head injuries than anything else, many of which could be easily prevented. That rocky or uneven ground the walkers tread makes the likelihood of a fall far higher than urban walking, especially if they're paying more attention to the panorama than their footing. I suppose helmets for fell walkers is a whole new thread though.
Give it time, I remember helmets making their debut on the ski slopes, at the time I thought here we go again, H&S gone mad, not changed my mind.
This article on ski helmets has many comparisons with cycle helmets:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/s...se-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html?_r=0
 
Top Bottom