The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

What is?

Is this how you deal with flaws in your arguments, bury your head in the sand? I'll spell it out for you.
You said-

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.

If you are going to smash yourself to a pulp then surely the risk of doing such an activity holds a fairly high risk, more so than "walking down the street" or whatever other "day to day" activity you want to mention.

 

[Justinslow]

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?

Still waiting for an answer..............

 

[Tim Hall]

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.

A quick scoot through the incident reports of the Langdale and Ambleside MRT suggests that leg/ankle injuries are the most common. Plus one bloke who was wearing a leopard print onesie who got hypothermia.

 

[ufkacbln]

Few? Many? How do you know?

Seeing you are so keen on people answering your questions, may I ask where all these cyclists dashing around in excess of 30 mph comes from, how do you know?


Perhaps I rely on the honesty and integrity of other members of this forum?

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?

May I ask why you feel tit is appropriate support your case by using this to much higher risk group to compare with normal pedestrians.

Surely it would be more appropriate to compare with a higher risk pedestrian group?

 

[ufkacbln]

If you are going to smash yourself to a pulp then surely the risk of doing such an activity holds a fairly high risk, .

.. or they could avoid being "smashed to a pulp" by riding at a slower speed or allowing a space between riders to stop if there is a problem.

We would rightly condemn a group of motorists travelling at 30 mph plus so close together (it is called tailgating and illegal)

 

[martint235]

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?

As a cyclist that regularly exceeds 30mph, can we drop the "protective equipment"? Protective equipment is tested against the scenarios it is expected to protect against. Therefore in this scenario a cycling helmet is a" plastic hat"

 

[swansonj]

May I ask why you feel tit is appropriate support your case by using this to much higher risk group to compare with normal pedestrians.

Surely it would be more appropriate to compare with a higher risk pedestrian group?

+1. To combine several points that have been made, cycling downhill at 30 mph is perhaps equivalent to walking Crib Goch. A club run at 15-20 mph is perhaps equivalent to walking but not scrambling in the mountains, and pootling to the pub on a bike is perhaps equivalent to walking to the same pub. For none of those walking activities is there any routine suggestion that helmets should be worn.

 

[Justinslow]

+1. To combine several points that have been made, cycling downhill at 30 mph is perhaps equivalent to walking Crib Goch. A club run at 15-20 mph is perhaps equivalent to walking but not scrambling in the mountains, and pootling to the pub on a bike is perhaps equivalent to walking to the same pub. For none of those walking activities is there any routine suggestion that helmets should be worn.

A club run at 15-20 mph is equivalent to walking? What planet are you on?

 

[Justinslow]

It appears impossible to have a serious straight conversation with many of you as you twist any argument any which way you can! This is why helmet threads ALWAYS get locked. I think you should think about what you write instead of trying to sound "clever" some of your arguments just come across completely bonkers! Just my opinion obviously as someone who regularly travels at +20 mph and competes in TT's and rarely pootles at walking pace.
And I reiterate, I'm not for compulsory helmet wearing!

 

[martint235]

I think my position has been very straightforward. I'm not anti helmet, in fact I've shown that I believe some helmets are worthwhile. Equestrian helmets and motor bike helmets have something in common. Cycling helmets will remain plastic hats until they gain that common ground.

There are two sides to this argument but one side has nothing to prove. I will never ask a helmet wearer to stop wearing one. When I see someone admonished for not wearing ons, I will ask for justification though and that, in breach of post 1, requires evidence

 

[Tim Hall]

A club run at 15-20 mph is equivalent to walking? What planet are you on?

Selective quoting there. The whole phrase was "A club run at 15-20 mph is perhaps equivalent to walking but not scrambling in the mountains." The mountains bit is part of the risk comparison.

 

[ufkacbln]

What part of the answers you are getting do you think are not serious or straight?

The ones that don't fit in with his agenda?

 

[Smurfy]

A club run at 15-20 mph is equivalent to walking? What planet are you on?

Crib Goch (as referred to by @swansonj) is a knife edge ridge walk, with a long, steep drop on either side. I've been up there in January in snow and ice, full concentration is required, and it's not an experience I'm eager to repeat.

 

[Justinslow]

Crib Goch (as referred to by @swansonj) is a knife edge ridge walk, with a long, steep drop on either side. I've been up there in January in snow and ice, full concentration is required, and it's not an experience I'm eager to repeat.

How this bares any relation to cycling is baffling.

 

[Justinslow]

I think my position has been very straightforward. I'm not anti helmet, in fact I've shown that I believe some helmets are worthwhile. Equestrian helmets and motor bike helmets have something in common. Cycling helmets will remain plastic hats until they gain that common ground.

There are two sides to this argument but one side has nothing to prove. I will never ask a helmet wearer to stop wearing one. When I see someone admonished for not wearing ons, I will ask for justification though and that, in breach of post 1, requires evidence

motorcycle helmets have a hard plastic shell covering polystyrene with some "comfy" padding where the helmet touches the head at their most basic level, cycle helmets have the same! They are not "plastic hats" as you call them!
Listen to yourselves.