The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Licramite]

The trouble is that we're almost all idiots in this regard, not matter how much we try to guard against it.

I've crashed as a consequence of undertaking a helmet-required ride (the last I ever did, I think - I decided to stop using a helmet before I got seriously injured) when the correct safe response would have been not to ride that bike in those conditions, especially for an optional journey... and I'm very familiar with the theory of risk compensation and of other things like confounding effects (aliased factors and so on). If graduate statisticians like me can fall victim to cycle helmet risk compensation like this, what hope is there for people who have never heard of the term, let alone studied it for years?

Those things are not safe and should be banned from the public roads to improve public safety in various ways.

you crashed because of your helmet - how?

 

[Shaun]

(@Moderators - This is meant as an example of risk compensation in reply to a post... if you feel it is going too far away from helmets, don't approve)

A few posts are okay and relative up to a point, but if you (and others) want to pursue it further it's probably best as a separate thread.

Thanks, Shaun.

 

[ufkacbln]

A few posts are okay and relative up to a point, but if you (and others) want to pursue it further it's probably best as a separate thread.

Thanks, Shaun.

Thanks... that is why asked

 

[jefmcg]

you crashed because of your helmet - how?

...

when the correct safe response would have been not to ride that bike in those conditions,

 

[mjr]

you crashed because of your helmet - how?

In the case I'm describing there, I made an incorrect decision that it was safe to ride the route which I honestly feel I would not have made if I had been wearing my usual clothes instead of Modern Cyclist Armour.

FWIW I have also crashed more directly because of a helmet, where a branch snagging a helmet vent dragged me onto the bank at the side of the road. No injuries that time, though - not even bruises - but it could have been different if a motorist had been following closely.

 

[Licramite]

Oh yes I've had moments like that, - you don't know whats beyond the next tree - till you get there. - its at moments like that I get off and carry the bike - Ive pushed my luck to many times.

branch in the helmet - yes I had one between me and the helmet strap that brought me down. - but if you ride in silly places you have to expect things like that, my helmet has saved my head from many a wack by branches, tree trunks, - most of the things I land on are generally soft and muddy, but I have slid along gravel paths head first on occasions,

The main protection I find is the smooth hardshell so things slide off or allow you to slide along without leaving bits behind. and being strapped on it tends not to get left behind attached to a tree.

 

[Brandane]

Copied and pasted from the relevant thread about entry to the Drumlanrig Challenge:

Actual event website at http://www.drumlanrigchallenge.btck.co.uk/ contains some restrictive regulations, including full obedience of the highway code (presumably even the mad bits like Rule 77 giving a choice between walking round the edge or riding in the left lane when turning right at roundabouts) and then some. I suggest people may like to read them before going to the entry link above because the donation required to entry is non-refundable.

I didn't get very far into the regulations before I found the one that excluded me. It's right there in the first paragraph. "H****ts must be worn". FFS; what is the matter with these organisers, or more to the point their insurers, when they feel the need to insist on the wearing of a piece of plastic with dubious protection, and which is not a legal requirement in any other circumstances? Sorry, but it really boils my pee, and the more helmet wearing is accepted as mainstream, the more examples of this we will see. Thanks, helmet wearers. Actually, this post is more suited to the helmet thread, so I will take it over there. As you were.

 

[mjr]

what is the matter with these organisers, or more to the point their insurers, when they feel the need to insist on the wearing of a piece of plastic with dubious protection, and which is not a legal requirement in any other circumstances?

Any evidence it's their insurers to blame or are you just guessing? I know it says "Any rider not wearing a helmet will not be covered by the event insurance" but it also says "The event third party liability insurance covers only the organising team and the event volunteers, individual riders are advised to arrange their only cover for third party liability and or personal accident insurance to meet their needs" so presumably any rider that is wearing a helmet isn't covered either?

That event didn't seem to be using British Cycling's services, so it's not their helmet nutters to blame, for a change.

In general, I agree it's very disappointing. I linked and called it out partly because it's a non-BC event (so not as obviously helmet-forcing), partly because of the obscurity of the regulations from the link given, partly because the entry fee is non-refundable if you then discover the regulations exclude you and partly because the regulations have quite a lot of mad shoot like "All cyclists must adhere to and obey the Highway Code" which makes me . The usual phrasing is "with regard to the Highway Code" because there's a lot of dodgy advice in it and some bits are probably mutually-exclusive.

For all those regulations, there seems to be few in there to enhance rider safety. Forced helmets and nearly nothing else. If insurers were consulted, I feel they should be pretty unhappy.

 

[Brandane]

Any evidence it's their insurers to blame or are you just guessing?

I was just guessing, since my interest in reading the rest of the T&C's ended when I saw the offending first line.

 

[jefmcg]

"The event third party liability insurance covers only the organising team and the event volunteers, individual riders are advised to arrange their only cover for third party liability and or personal accident insurance to meet their needs" so presumably any rider that is wearing a helmet isn't covered either?

I would assume it to mean that if you aren't wearing a helmet, are injured and you sue them, their 3rd party insurers would not pay.

 

[srw]

I would assume it to mean that if you aren't wearing a helmet, are injured and you sue them, their 3rd party insurers would not pay.

If they mean that then I think they would be surprised. If the organisers have contributed to an injury and are successfully sued*, their insurers will pay whatever the circumstances. That's what third-party liability insurance is.

*Realistically, your lawyers and their lawyers come to a mutually acceptable compromise. I gather that few cases ever get as far as a judge.

 

[MontyVeda]

Anyone who thinks the more protection I have means I can take greater risks - is an idiot ...

Oh yes I've had moments like that, - you don't know whats beyond the next tree - till you get there. - its at moments like that I get off and carry the bike - Ive pushed my luck to many times.

branch in the helmet - yes I had one between me and the helmet strap that brought me down. - but if you ride in silly places you have to expect things like that, my helmet has saved my head from many a wack by branches, tree trunks, - most of the things I land on are generally soft and muddy, but I have slid along gravel paths head first on occasions,

The main protection I find is the smooth hardshell so things slide off or allow you to slide along without leaving bits behind. and being strapped on it tends not to get left behind attached to a tree.

 

[mjr]

In most cases it is not the insurers insisting on helmets.

The Drumlanrig Challenge organiser has since claimed it is the insurer but I hesitate to challenge a volunteer further over a ride I'm unlikely to do soon even if the H&H rules are revoked. If anyone feels it's worth it, ask who the insurer is and whatever else is of interest.

 

[martint235]

This might not work but a whole article on concussion in cycling and I don't think he mentions a helmet once
Suggestion about Procycling Mar 2017 page 36
https://on.readly.com/GB!f71dr6531Ul

 

[KnackeredBike]

After my accident I was subject to a bit of state telling off.

Firstly the police accident form actually had a question on whether you were wearing a helmet, which seemed a bit beyond the remit of the police.

Then I went to Minor Injuries and got a telling off from the nurse about not wearing a helmet.

Frustrating when even the NHS website quotes the BMJ saying helmets make sod all difference. But hey, why have anything evidence based.