The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

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...

Maybe you should invest in some better footwear? Again it's just your point of view.

 

[Mugshot]

Your belief is just that though, a belief. Perhaps you could take a moment to have a look at this very clear explanation of perception of risk, and how it goes astray.
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

I particularly like that one, very effective.

 

[Mugshot]

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

Are you ignoring mine too?
I'll try again if that's OK, I am unclear what your opinion is, would you explain it to me please?

 

[MarkF]

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.

it makes perfects 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.

I work in A&E 3 days a week and have done so for 13 months, one of the busiest A&E's in the country. Head injuries come in on every shift, but in those 13 months I've not seen one cyclist come in. Walking down the street appears far more dangerous than cycling to me.

 

[MontyVeda]

I work in A&E 3 days a week and have done so for 13 months, one of the busiest A&E's in the country. Head injuries come in on every shift, but in those 13 months I've not seen one cyclist come in. Walking down the street appears far more dangerous than cycling to me.

ah yeah but... that because cyclists are wearing helmets and peds aren't.

 

[mjr]

I work in A&E 3 days a week and have done so for 13 months, one of the busiest A&E's in the country. Head injuries come in on every shift, but in those 13 months I've not seen one cyclist come in. Walking down the street appears far more dangerous than cycling to me.

May I ask how often drunks come in?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

I've fallen over many, many, more times whilst "walking down the street" after "drinking beer" than I've ever fallen off my bike*

*which pretty much guarantees an off now. But I won't be wearing a helmet.

 

[Justinslow]

Are you ignoring mine too?
I'll try again if that's OK, I am unclear what your opinion is, would you explain it to me please?

I've said it many times, my opinion is I'll wear one when I see fit, when I don't see fit - as in if I'm going on a slow jaunt with kids I may not wear one, sometimes I do, trying to set an example.
However if I'm using my mtb as intended or my road bike I will always wear my helmet.
I don't want compulsory helmet wearing, honestly, but I guess I see risk differently to some of you.

 

[MarkF]

There must be stronger case for living alone elderly folk to wear helmets than cyclists? At least the latter don't have to hope that the carer will find them.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

Almost as spurious as comparing cyclists at high speed, too close to each other with normal pedestrians?

You have fixated on one single minority group and then stuck your fingers in your ears and sung LALALALALA at any responses.

There are many high risk groups of pedestrians, but as you are blatantly unwilling to accept any pedestrian not traveling at 30 mph, it is a waste of time describing them

 

[Profpointy]

I've said it many times, my opinion is I'll wear one when I see fit, when I don't see fit - as in if I'm going on a slow jaunt with kids I may not wear one, sometimes I do, trying to set an example.
However if I'm using my mtb as intended or my road bike I will always wear my helmet.
I don't want compulsory helmet wearing, honestly, but I guess I see risk differently to some of you.

To a fair degree I agree with that philosophy - which if I've understood it might be re-phrased as "if I'm doing a type of cycling I percieve as slightly more risky I'll wear a hat".

There is one flaw though in that you've (naturally enough) assumed helmets reduce risk for cycling. The trouble is they don't appear to have done so in Australia - for whatever reason. So either they make no difference either way, or for every time they help protect there's another instance they make things worse. This balance may change at speed but it would be hard to say why or in which direction.

I also don-t understand why you're so dismissive of the head injuries following beer drinking point. Surely it's undeniable that (significant) beer drinking considerably increases the risk of head injury? Ok maybe a quiet pint with your tea might be equivalent to the park cycle, whilst a stag do might be pro racing down the alps. But a head injury is still an injury. I don't know the stats, but I'd be suprised if alcohol wasn't a bigger risk than cycling all in all - and certainly not a trivial one. It's perfectly fair to ask why "we" .(ie society) see cycling as a helmety thing but not another somewhat risky activity. Asking this kind of question helps us think things through clearly and is not being smart-arsey or intellectual debatery.

To be fair though, simply beacuse we don't wear helmets when we should for one risky activity isn't a reason for not wearing them for another - providing they help of course

 

[martint235]

Helmet tests, such as they are, have far more relevance to your slow jaunt than they have to travelling at speed. The 1.5 metre drop onto a flat surface is akin to a short person having a clipless moment but you seem fascinated by the undemonstrable assistance a helmet may (but probably won't) provide in a high speed impact

 

[Justinslow]

To a fair degree I agree with that philosophy - which if I've understood it might be re-phrased as "if I'm doing a type of cycling I percieve as slightly more risky I'll wear a hat".

There is one flaw though in that you've (naturally enough) assumed helmets reduce risk for cycling. The trouble is they don't appear to have done so in Australia - for whatever reason. So either they make no difference either way, or for every time they help protect there's another instance they make things worse. This balance may change at speed but it would be hard to say why or in which direction.

I also don-t understand why you're so dismissive of the head injuries following beer drinking point. Surely it's undeniable that (significant) beer drinking considerably increases the risk of head injury? Ok maybe a quiet pint with your tea might be equivalent to the park cycle, whilst a stag do might be pro racing down the alps. But a head injury is still an injury. I don't know the stats, but I'd be suprised if alcohol wasn't a bigger risk than cycling all in all - and certainly not a trivial one. It's perfectly fair to ask why "we" .(ie society) see cycling as a helmety thing but not another somewhat risky activity. Asking this kind of question helps us think things through clearly and is not being smart-arsey or intellectual debatery.

To be fair though, simply beacuse we don't wear helmets when we should for one risky activity isn't a reason for not wearing them for another - providing they help of course

I just dont know anyone who has seriously injured their head whilst drinking or seriously injured their head whilst in the kitchen against an open cupboard door. However I do know people who've come off their bike where like it or not they and others believe their helmet helped prevent more serious injuries. If it did prevent serious injuries is open to question I guess and something some people will never believe it seems.
I just see cycling in a light which opens up the possibilities for accidents - busy roads, idiot drivers, mechanical mishaps (punctures, brakes, drive train etc) slippery conditions, animals running out, children running out, car drivers opening their doors in your path, manhole covers, pot holes etc etc all exacerbated by speed. Most of which will happen when cycling but not whilst walking on the pavement or in the hills or drinking beer, I just don't buy the comparisons.
Another point, I'm self employed, I don't have a safety net of "getting paid time off sick" like some employed people, I wonder if this shapes my view on risk and doing what I can to limit my chances of a head injury?

 

[Justinslow]

Helmet tests, such as they are, have far more relevance to your slow jaunt than they have to travelling at speed. The 1.5 metre drop onto a flat surface is akin to a short person having a clipless moment but you seem fascinated by the undemonstrable assistance a helmet may (but probably won't) provide in a high speed impact

Yes but you seem dismissive of the fact that cyclists can and do go fast and keep comparing cycling with walking.
Just because a helmet has to pass a basic test does not mean it does not exceed that test.

 

[Justinslow]

Almost as spurious as comparing cyclists at high speed, too close to each other with normal pedestrians?

You have fixated on one single minority group and then stuck your fingers in your ears and sung LALALALALA at any responses.

There are many high risk groups of pedestrians, but as you are blatantly unwilling to accept any pedestrian not traveling at 30 mph, it is a waste of time describing them

Try for me, we've already had "quad bikers" as the streets are clearly awash with quad bikes! Day to day activities was the phrase I believe.