The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

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

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
Ok so where are we going with all this? Is it ever going to become mandatory (not saying that it should) or are we all going to be persuaded with scientific evidence that wearing one is a waste of time or are we just going to carry on in the "I wear one", "I don't" camp? And are we going to carry on with these infantile comparisons with everyday life for ever?

It isn't, if I have anything to do with it. It's for those who want to impose the measure to demonstrate that it is desirable/necessary. I don't need to provide scientific evidence for what clothing I wear in my everyday life.
 

Justinslow

Lovely jubbly
Location
Suffolk
Earlier someone said it was ok for a horse rider to wear a helmet because they fell a little further than you do on a bike because the horse was a little bit further away from the ground for pity's sake!
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
When all the splendid cyclists of cph decide for themselves that helmets are the way to go I my re-adjust my own position. Wish they would wear gloves though.
 

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
Earlier someone said it was ok for a horse rider to wear a helmet because they fell a little further than you do on a bike because the horse was a little bit further away from the ground for pity's sake!
But there's also more evidence provided around the testing and efficacy of horse riding helmets specifically around the scenarios a horse rider may experience for example the helmet is tested against a horse kick
 

Justinslow

Lovely jubbly
Location
Suffolk
There is nothing ludicrous about the comparison though. People hurt their heads doing all sorts of things. We accept the risk as just one of those things for most activities. We have a hysterical reaction to the risk in cycling that is out of all proportion to the risk.
Why is it out of proportion to the risk? I would counter that with speed, what other day to day stuff are you travelling at up to 30 mph or even higher with no protective equipment at all?
 
Why is it out of proportion to the risk? I would counter that with speed, what other day to day stuff are you travelling at up to 30 mph or even higher with no protective equipment at all?

So... we can discount any head injury outside your very narrow definition?
 
Answer the question if you could please.

Not a problem...

You suggest that cyclists are a group that travel at 30 mph or higher without any protective equipment

Reality is that few cyclists are in this group so the argument that this is a day to day risk for cyclists is both unrealistic and untrue
 

Justinslow

Lovely jubbly
Location
Suffolk
Not a problem...

You suggest that cyclists are a group that travel at 30 mph or higher without any protective equipment

Reality is that few cyclists are in this group so the argument that this is a day to day risk for cyclists is both unrealistic and untrue
Few? Many? How do you know?
The point is that cyclists can quite easily attain these speeds and quite obviously can be in a much higher risk bracket than "walking down the street".
And by the way you still haven't answered the question - what other day to day stuff are you travelling at up to and over 30 mph with no protective equipment?
 

Justinslow

Lovely jubbly
Location
Suffolk
Because hardly anyone actually hits their head in a damage causing way.
Counter with speed if you like but, if you do come off your bike at 30mph, and hit anything with that as the impact speed, your helmet ain't going to do much good.
So it's more risky then?
 
Top Bottom