The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Undoubtedly some of the impact of my vast 19st bulk hitting the ground was absorbed by my limbs and ribs. Ive got the cuts and bruises and painful ribs to testify to that. However that does not mean that the impact to the head if unprotected would have been small enough so there will have been no injury, we have no way of knowing. Based on my recollection of the impact I very much suspect there would have been some level of head injury, possibly beyond a scrape.

Sorry, I was referring to the triathlon / deer incident

 

[Big Andy]

It is the absurd denial that any other factor apart from the helmet can or should be considered in an accident, and the concept that riders do not need to take care as they will be -protected by the helmet that is being challenged

That denial would indeed by absurd. I cannot recall anyone saying they do not need to take care because they are wearing a helmet either. Absurd also.

 

[ufkacbln]

Prevention is always the best option. I am sure everyone will agree. However 100% prevention cannot be guaranteed, its sort of the nature of accidents, they happen.

However it should be recognized that risks are different

Racing speeds in a park with a known deer population as above is an unrealistic position to assess that risk

If someone feels that they have reduced their personal risk to a level where a helmet is not required then that is their decision is valid

If that person then decides to race in a park with a large deer population, and decide to wear one, that is equally valid for that person

The important point is that it is informed as to the reality of helmet function, the limits of their performance and the real risks to the individual

 

[Big Andy]

Accident prevention is a proven way of reducing injuries in cyclists and should be the first recourse

This I agree with 100%. However I am sure you will agree that accidents cannot be eliminated, which then leaves you having to decide whether you as an individual consider the risk of an accident is such that you should employ some sort of protection against the effects of that incident.
It should very much be a matter for the individual though.

 

[Big Andy]

I rather thought the deer incident was introduced in a tongue in cheek manner. I certainly didnt take it as someone suggesting it as justification for helmet wearing

 

[Big Andy]

However it should be recognized that risks are different

Racing speeds in a park with a known deer population as above is an unrealistic position to assess that risk

If someone feels that they have reduced their personal risk to a level where a helmet is not required then that is their decision is valid

If that person then decides to race in a park with a large deer population, and decide to wear one, that is equally valid for that person

The important point is that it is informed as to the reality of helmet function, the limits of their performance and the real risks to the individual

I am afraid we are in violent agreement!!

 

[srw]

None whatsoever as they were not included in the original scenario, along with the dog that is or is not chasing the ball across the road, or the couple having unprotected sex in the park around the corner as to whether she will or will not get pregnant.

The interesting question is "Why not?"

 

[doog]

I'll throw something in . None of what you've said negates the fact that if you wear a helmet incase a deer jumps on your head you're a first class pillock.

Why is he a pillock. The fact a deer was involved is immaterial, the causation is immaterial, any number of factors might have caused him to fall on his head. Whatever they were he isn't a pillock because the helmet clearly did its job.

 

[ufkacbln]

I am afraid we are in violent agreement!!

Helmets can prevent head injuries in violent situations

 

[Mugshot]

Not really no. A vanishingly small chance of that happening. A risk so tiny it really is not worth considering as is the deer landing on your head.
Hypotheticals are a bit pointless really.

I think that in the situation you experienced you may have had some benefit from wearing a helmet , there is though as I'm sure you were expecting caveats to that. Firstly you were it seems travelling within the likely design spec of the helmet and secondly it was, as you described yourself, a "freak incident". Whilst not, as demonstrated by yourself, a situation which will never occur, a "freak incident" at the right speed is not a regular occurrence. How many other scenarios could/should we wear protective equipment for in case we experience a "freak incident"?
You're spot on with the hypertheticals, it's ridiculous and I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that the deer incident was introduced tongue in cheek. I would say it's the ABC of pro helmet debaters but that would be an insult to toddlers.

 

[Big Andy]

I think that in the situation you experienced you may have had some benefit from wearing a helmet , there is though as I'm sure you were expecting caveats to that. Firstly you were it seems travelling within the likely design spec of the helmet and secondly it was, as you described yourself, a "freak incident". Whilst not, as demonstrated by yourself, a situation which will never occur, a "freak incident" at the right speed is not a regular occurrence. How many other scenarios could/should we wear protective equipment for in case we experience a "freak incident"?
You're spot on with the hypertheticals, it's ridiculous and I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that the deer incident was introduced tongue in cheek. I would say it's the ABC of pro helmet debaters but that would be an insult to toddlers.

There are always caveats when it comes to accidents/incidents, there are simply too many variables. As a community we should perhaps be pushing for better testing standards and information so individuals can make more informed choices. Perhaps some sort of helmet rating scheme is required.

 

[Mugshot]

There are always caveats when it comes to accidents/incidents, there are simply too many variables. As a community we should perhaps be pushing for better testing standards and information so individuals can make more informed choices. Perhaps some sort of helmet rating scheme is required.

I think that there should definitely be more honesty from manufacturers rather than the usual lighter, more aero, better ventilation spiel. I honestly believe the vast majority of people are totally unaware of the limitations of cycle helmets and far too often believe that they are indestructible when they wear one.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Moderator Note:

Once again the mods have had their attention drawn to this thread and looking back over a couple of pages it seems that certain people need another reminder of the rules:

Discussion Rules:

Normal forum rules apply, but these additional rules will take priority in governing The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread:

No personal remarks, dismissive or derisive comments, insults, scorn, mocking, etc. - when replying please focus on the points someone has made. Do not make your reply personal and do not allow your temper to get the better of you if you feel strongly about something someone else has posted. If you feel another post or poster is inappropriate just report it. Responding with personal remarks or trying to moderate the thread will lead to you being excluded from the discussion for a period of 30 days.​

No insistence or demands for members to provide evidence or proof - personal experiences and anecdotes are fine in the context of this forum discussion. We're not looking to formulate laws or prove anything scientifically. Insistence will lead to you being excluded for 30 days.​

No nit-picking, stirring, goading, circular arguments, etc. - please ensure your posts and replies are substantial and either make a point or address the points you are replying to, and do not debate a specific point ad nauseam. Nit-picking, stirring, goading, and circular arguments, etc. will lead to you being excluded for 30 days.​

Moderators are allowed some discretion and may choose to post a request in the thread to bring it back on track before applying any exclusions, but the main point to understand is that you risk losing your right to reply if you do not engage politely and properly with other members.

Please be respectful of other people's opinions and choices and be considerate in your replies.

Thanks,
Shaun

Cut out the personal stuff from this point onwards.

 

[Justinslow]

I think that in the situation you experienced you may have had some benefit from wearing a helmet , there is though as I'm sure you were expecting caveats to that. Firstly you were it seems travelling within the likely design spec of the helmet and secondly it was, as you described yourself, a "freak incident". Whilst not, as demonstrated by yourself, a situation which will never occur, a "freak incident" at the right speed is not a regular occurrence. How many other scenarios could/should we wear protective equipment for in case we experience a "freak incident"?
You're spot on with the hypertheticals, it's ridiculous and I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that the deer incident was introduced tongue in cheek. I would say it's the ABC of pro helmet debaters but that would be an insult to toddlers.

I introduced the Deer story as its topical, the guy had an accident, he landed on his head, he was wearing a helmet, he said it helped him, he got up and carried on riding. The fact that a Deer hit him was immaterial, it is all about the helmet story and the excellent photo that goes with the story.
I'm amazed it bothers you so much how some accidents occur, only the "correct" type of accident is allowed in this thread is it? Just like the "correct" type of damage on a helmet after an accident when wearing one..........

 

[Justinslow]

It is the same conclusion time after time after time. He said it helped, he said it definitely saved his life. Every single time.
No one knows, it might it might not, but in sure and certain ignorance every time the same bold assertions.

Still worthy of putting in the "helmet thread" though, anecdotal evidence and all that, just like @Big Andys accident report.