The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

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

Your spurious comparisons with other every day to day activities and your inability to accept cycling carries a higher risk than many of those activities. Comparing cycling with "walking down the street" is like comparing apples with oranges - pointless. Your inability to come up with any other "day to day" activity where speeds of over 30 mph can be attained whilst wearing no protective equipment.

 

[Mugshot]

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!

I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread.
You have become fixated on cycling at or beyond 30mph, which you appear to believe has settled the helmet debate once and for all, as has been pointed out this exceeds the level which cycle hemets are currently required to reach. I would expect that it is also the case that for the majority of riders the amount of time spent above and beyond 30mph is relatively small, so you are attempting to create a scenario which firstly includes the relatively small risk of falling off, then adding in the relatively small risk of banging your head and then adding on to the top of all that the relatively small chance that the first two requirements happen when you're above and beyond 30mph. The window of opportunity for your imagined disaster is barely ajar.
Nobody here is claiming that helmets offer no protection in any scenario (despite your earlier claim). My own opinion is that whilst I do believe that I could fall off and bump my head and that given the right set of circumstances a helmet could help, the likelihood of it happening is remote. I believe that wearing a helmet gives the impression that cycling is a high risk activity, something you said that you believe, but you choose not to wear a helmet for all cycling. So could you please tell me what your opinion is, because I seem to have missed it somewhere.

 

[Mugshot]

Your inability to come up with any other "day to day" activity where speeds of over 30 mph can be attained whilst wearing no protective equipment.

Quad bike?

 

[martint235]

Motorcycle helmets undergo rigorous testing against real world scenarios. Evidence is then collated to show that the device will help to provide a more positive outcome should you come off your bike. Equestrian helmets similar.

I don't need to listen to myself, I'm afraid you do.

 

[Justinslow]

The speed of the activity is irrelevant. It is the simple fact that people injure their heads doing them that matters.

Any chance you write that again so it makes sense please?

 

[Justinslow]

I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread.
You have become fixated on cycling at or beyond 30mph, which you appear to believe has settled the helmet debate once and for all, as has been pointed out this exceeds the level which cycle hemets are currently required to reach. I would expect that it is also the case that for the majority of riders the amount of time spent above and beyond 30mph is relatively small, so you are attempting to create a scenario which firstly includes the relatively small risk of falling off, then adding in the relatively small risk of banging your head and then adding on to the top of all that the relatively small chance that the first two requirements happen when you're above and beyond 30mph. The window of opportunity for your imagined disaster is barely ajar.
Nobody here is claiming that helmets offer no protection in any scenario (despite your earlier claim). My own opinion is that whilst I do believe that I could fall off and bump my head and that given the right set of circumstances a helmet could help, the likelihood of it happening is remote. I believe that wearing a helmet gives the impression that cycling is a high risk activity, something you said that you believe, but you choose not to wear a helmet for all cycling. So could you please tell me what your opinion is, because I seem to have missed it somewhere.

People have said many times on this forum that a "woolly hat" or a "melon" or a "straw hat" offers similar protection to a bike helmet, you can't have it both ways, do they do any good or not?

 

[Mugshot]

People have said many times on this forum that a "woolly hat" or a "melon" or a "straw hat" offers similar protection to a bike helmet, you can't have it both ways, do they do any good or not?

Any chance you write that again so it makes sense please?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

None of the three people I've seen get hit by cars in the last week or so were wearing helmets. Nor were more than 10% of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cyclist witnesses to said collisions. None of the "victims" of said "accidents" suffered head injuries, but two did sustain broken bones. Perhaps the cyclists of Copenhagen, given the 1.2 million kilometres they cycle every working day, know more about real world risk assessment and injury prevention, and about the utter pointlessness of wearing polystyrene lids, than many UK pro-helmet cyclists, maybe?

 

[MontyVeda]

Any chance you write that again so it makes sense please?

it makes perfect sense... it's just you're not seeing it.

People can fall and bang their heads whilst walking. People can be hit by cars mounting the pavement, knocking them doiwn and causing a head injury. People can stand up in their kitchen and bang their head on an open cupboard door. People can crash their car and bang their head in their car's interior.... there's lots of ways one can get a head injury.... this is all stuff that A&E staff see on most days.

 

[mjr]

People have said many times on this forum that a "woolly hat" or a "melon" or a "straw hat" offers similar protection to a bike helmet, you can't have it both ways, do they do any good or not?

I'm pretty sure people have said that such headgear is a more proportionate response to the risk and maybe better at improving outcomes, not that it "offers similar protection" in a crash.

Replying to what people write, rather than what is imagined, will result in a better discussion.

 

[mjr]

What has been asked of me?

Some examples from the last few pages:

But equally neither has the helmet? Why is the test stuck in the past? Why not develop one that reflects what people expect from a helmet? (to travel over 12 mph and possibly collide with something going far faster .... meaning the combined speed is far bigger than the 12 mph - physics isn't my strong point)

How will he testify?

...and monitor them to see if they throw their natural caution to the winds and take greater risks as some humans appear to do?

are those helmets meant to be tipped that far back?

Isn't horse riding awfully dangerous though as well

I apologise if I missed any of the answers.

 

[mjr]

I would expect that it is also the case that for the majority of riders the amount of time spent above and beyond 30mph is relatively small

I record almost every ride (for distance and routing more than speed) and I am pretty sure I've been above 30mph twice since starting to record - both on smooth straight quiet stretches of tarmac of about half a mile, with strong tailwinds.

Even assuming a crash helmet would help if I crashed in such a situation (and I can only think of catastrophic mechanical failure causing me to crash alone on such straight smooth open routes), it's such a tiny fraction of cycling, that seems like the wrong situation to base a decision that greatly affects all my cycling on. I doubt anyone other than racers spend much time going so quickly. If I remember correctly, pro races in Europe average in the high twenties mph, so probably only a minority of even a racer's time is spent over 30mph!

 

[swansonj]

The speed of the activity is irrelevant. It is the simple fact that people injure their heads doing them that matters.

Yes. To spell out my analogy from yesterday at tedious length:

When scrambling Crib Goch or cycling downhill at 30mph, I am concentrating as hard as I can on not going wrong, because I know that if I do go wrong, an awful lot of energy is going to be dumped in my fragile body (in one case potential energy, in the other kinetic). The overall risk seems comparable.

Last week, I did a days hill walking in the Lakes, and slipped twice on slippery rocks. One time I landed in my backside and the other I put a hand out to stop me and slightly bruised a finger. Two incidents in a day is far more than I would expect if instead of walking I'd spent the day cycling the Lakes passes, but possibly the height of fall is a bit less (you tend to slip backwards when going down hill). Again, I conclude the risk is very much in the same ball park.

Yet no-one seems to feel the need to advocate helmets for hill walking unless technical climbing is involved...

 

[Justinslow]

They might all prevent a nasty bruise. People have said this over and over again, but you seem keen to prove that a plastic hat will also save you when you get smashed to bits at 30 mph. If you don't care whether people wear a helmet or not, why does it matter?

Because some of you seem to think the risk associated with cycling is the same as "walking down the street" or "drinking beer", I believe this to be incorrect.

 

[Justinslow]

Some examples from the last few pages:










I apologise if I missed any of the answers.

Well sorry, some of the questions are best described as "open" and "generalised". The ones you asked - I just ignore.