Well, it seems that helmet users are much more frequently head-banging, so it was ever likely to happen at some point.
I have seen very few reports of "head banging" certainly not enough to form any opinion.
Helmets really are fantastic self-advertising products. It seems they destroy themselves very photogenically in minor crashes, giving their buyers a real "you made the right decision" positive feedback so they rush out and waste another £10 to £350 and it's very difficult to dissuade them of that, to point out that the likely alternative was not to suffer a head injury and possibly even no crash at all.
The statement that "the likely alternative was not to suffer a head injury and possibly even no crash at all" completely disregards the fact that accidents happen and nasty head injuries happen, and even to non helmet wearers.
Can we think of other products that con their users into buying them again and again because of how smart they make them feel...?
Please provide evidence of anyone who wears a helmet because it makes them feel smart.
Except it wouldn't have been the same force - it would be about half a pound of helmet lighter, which may even be enough of a reduction that your neck may have been able to keep your head from the ground, doing a job that necks have evolved to do.
I agree it wouldn't have been the same force although as it was me that experienced the amount of force I would not have wanted to experience even half the force on my unprotected head, I also appreciate that a non helmeted head is smaller so would have had to travel perhaps a whole 25-40mm further before impact, so while I completely agree that the neck may have been able to keep my head from the ground, however equally it may not have been, after all an adult human head weighs about 11lb or so, the extra half pound or so of helmet will have only a very small effect on the amount of force exerted. Of course that extra 25-40mm of travel may or may not also lead to a neck injury.
Also, the edge of most helmets is not part of the tested area in any of the current standards. It seems highly unlikely that the manufacturer designed that bit for anything more than looks because making such an area protective would be unnecessary cost which would leave them open to allegations of dereliction of fiduciary duty from their shareholders.
None of which has any bearing whatsoever on anything really, you appear to be suggesting that the side of the helmet will not provide any protection. The evidence of my incident and the damage to the side of the helmet and lack of damage to my head provides reasonable evidence, in my humble opinion, to the contrary.
Given the government's statements that the low rate of helmet use is a strong reason they haven't introduced compulsion, it's not possible to be "very much pro-choice" and use a helmet. If you use a helmet, you may be theoretically pro-choice, but your actions are taken as support for compulsion.
I'm sorry this is nonsense, who are you to tell me I may only be theoretically pro choice and that it's not possible to be very much pro choice? I choose to mostly wear a helmet when cycling, occasionally when out with the wife "pootling" along the canal tow path or leisurely winding our way along some of the local greenways I will choose not to wear a helmet, if out on the road bike on a training ride I will always choose to wear a helmet. I will always support your choice to wear a helmet or not too, there is nothing theoretical about it, the very definition of "very much pro-choice" I would say. If some other person or even you decide that me mostly wearing a helmet is somehow support for compulsion they are wrong, very wrong.
I caught myself doing it too. When I used helmets, I crashed more. I think the last time I used a helmet, I crashed... and I realised it was because I'd used the dratted thing instead of actually attempting to address the reasonably-forseeable cause of a crash. Fortunately, the bike only suffered minor damage.
I am pleased that you and the bike didn't suffer major damage. Yes some crash causes are foreseeable, not all are though, just as some crashes are preventable and some are not.
Since stopping using a helmet, I don't think I've ended up on the floor yet. The bike has done once, but I'd jumped off early
I hope I don't have to read that you have ended up on the floor, and fervently hope not to read that you, or anyone else for that matter has sustained injury.
It's absurd, though. You use a helmet in case of an unknown event while cycling but don't use one in case of an about-as-unlikely unknown event while walking - one of those decisions must be wrong and I don't think it's the walking one...
Actually no neither decision is wrong, the reason being I do not accept the premise that the likelihood of the unknown event while walking is the same as when cycling, it is lower and low enough for me to consider that wearing a helmet is not required while on foot. I can't recall falling of my feet and banging my head since I was a little kid many years ago, fell of my bike and banged my head on Monday and I have done many times more miles on foot than cycling.
They don't often say it, but as in my experience, I used a helmet instead of taking sufficient care and crashed as a result. So I think risk compensation is a reality and not absurd at all.
I did not suggest that risk compensation is absurd, I have no doubt at all that risk compensation is a reality, it does not however account for all accidents while wearing a helmet, and suggesting that all accidents while wearing a helmet could be prevented by not wearing a helmet and taking more care is the height of absurdity. As would be the concept of wearing a helmet so the rider does not have to take any care when cycling.
It's actually all very simple.
I would much prefer not to have an accident and I take reasonable care to try and prevent them, I am of course still human and will make mistakes, as will others and they may still happen. In the event of an accident that may lead to some form of head impact I would prefer to have some level of protection on my head. Now you can argue all you like whether cycle helmets provide sufficient protection or not, it seems reasonably clear to me that there isn't sufficient hard data on this so we are left with making a decision based on some scientific evidience, anecdotal evidence and our own personal experience. As long as we are all permitted to make that decision for ourselves and not be castigated for that decision I am happy.
!
T
