The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Racing roadkill]

That post looks a little lost now. It was in response to a post from racing roadkill that has since disappeared. In that post he appeared to assert that wearing a helmet reduced your risk of having an accident.

It was not that at all.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It was not that at all.

That's how it appeared. You said that wearing a helmet would not only reduce the risk in the first place but it would mitigate the consequences if the risk were realised.

Maybe you could clarify what risk you were referring to.

 

[srw]

It was not that at all.

I believe that this is the relevant sentence from the deleted post, with the important clause highlighted:

"Wearing a helmet mitigates the risk, whether the risks are realised constantly or not, is neither here nor there, they exist, and the consequences of them being realised, and the theoretical consequences of the risks being realised, would lead a person of at least average intelligence, to realise, that the simple act of wearing a helmet, will reduce the risk, in the first instance, and mitigate the consequences, should the risk be realised.

That says that you think that wearing a helmet will itself reduce "the risk", and since you go on to talk about consequence mitigation separately, I can only assume that "the risk" you're talking about is the risk of having an accident.

I know that in the past you have expressed the view that sometimes you don't wear a helmet because of risk analysis, which makes the whole sentence interesting.

Finding risk analysis difficult, and finding it difficult to explain what you mean is not something to be ashamed of. As a species we're pretty damned bad at it. Even those of us who do it for a living often find ourselves tripped up.

 

[hatler]

And, in any case, don't the stats show that you're more likely to fall off if you are wearing a helmet ?

 

[benb]

Helmets make you more likely to hit your head.
They must do - they add 30% to the cross sectional area.

 

[mjr]

Changes in participation, demographics and hazard associated with mandatory bicycle helmets in New South Wales, Australia: "That bicycle helmets have prevented some fatalities and reduced some injuries is not disputed. However, the factors mentioned above are able to explain most or all of the observed reductions in fatalities and provide a better explanation of the pattern of those reductions than mandatory helmet legislation."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140517306576

(thanks to https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=121240 )

 

[simonali]

I recently contacted my local cycle club, as they run a ride designed to attract new members on a Saturday afternoon. I mentioned in the email that I don't wear a lid and was told club rules are no helmet, no ride. I now won't be going on Saturday.

I will be going out tomorrow with a friend who also doesn't wear a helmet...

 

[Mrklaw]

So we are basically in a situation where
- there is no empirical evidence for or against helmets
- there is no law requiring helmets

The logical conclusion is therefore - it is your choice, and there is no real way to know if your choice is ‘correct’. Which is insane.

Seems to me that government or cycling bodies need to get some bloody research done. It’s almost criminally negligent that such a big subject - cyclist safety - doesn’t have decent research behind it to help cyclists make an informed decision and to help governments plan laws/guidance based on evidence.

 

[snorri]

Seems to me that government or cycling bodies need to get some bloody research done. It’s almost criminally negligent that such a big subject - cyclist safety - doesn’t have decent research behind it to help cyclists make an informed decision and to help governments plan laws/guidance based on evidence.

There is already plenty of evidence available for those wishing to make an informed decision regarding wearing or not wearing a helmet. Money used for any further research into helmet issues would be better used to resolve some of the already well proven dangers to cyclists.

 

[Brandane]

The logical conclusion is therefore - it is your choice, and there is no real way to know if your choice is ‘correct’. Which is insane.

Not so much insane, as the nanny state for once keeping their nose out of it and allowing people to make their own choices. I am all for that as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and in the case of cycle helmets I don't see how it could possibly be anyone's business but the cyclist.

 

[Mrklaw]

Not so much insane, as the nanny state for once keeping their nose out of it and allowing people to make their own choices. I am all for that as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and in the case of cycle helmets I don't see how it could possibly be anyone's business but the cyclist.

I’d like to make an informed choice both for myself and my kids who aren’t old enough to make their own decisions on this.

If there is enough evidence out there then why all the constant circular arguments?

 

[Fab Foodie]

[QUOTE 5362705, member: 43827"]https://road.cc/content/news/247435-geraint-thomas-says-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory[/QUOTE]
G. Is now officially a nobber.

 

[simonali]

I recently contacted my local cycle club, as they run a ride designed to attract new members on a Saturday afternoon. I mentioned in the email that I don't wear a lid and was told club rules are no helmet, no ride.

Just seen this on their website under the club run requirements:

A properly fitted cycle helmet is strongly recommended

That is not the same as 'no helmet, no ride'!

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 5363685, member: 43827"]
Wearing a helmet or not is a personal choice that warrants no criticism, and wearing them does not deserve the disdain for that choice so frequently seen on this thread. Some, on both sides make their choice after some thought, others after no thought at all. Non helmet wearers are not a form of oppressed minority, nor are they pedalling freedom fighters, and helmet wearers are not dedicated followers of fashion, but hey, there's at least another 355 pages in this thread.[/QUOTE]

I view everyday helmet-wearing as a bad thing. It normalizes unnecessary barriers to participation, portrays cycling as a specialist activity, and diminishes the freedom and pleasure of cycling. If people want to do it for themselves for whatever reason, that's their call - just as they might wear a St Christopher if it comforts them, but those who wish to foist it on the rest of us owe us a better explanation than they have yet come up with.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

[QUOTE 5363779, member: 43827"]Diminishing the freedom and pleasure of cycling is a personal thing not an objective measure.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Here's several objective reasons for why wearing bicycle helmets does diminish the freedom and pleasure of cycling:

1. they're bulky and don't fit very well in bags or cases.
2. they mess up people's hair, and that actually deters some people from cycling.
3. they can't easily be secured at the end of trips, so people have to carry helmets with them, another inconvenience.

There are several bad side-effects of the above, because they deter a lot of people from cycling, which causes cyclists to become minority groups:

• cyclists lose the safety in numbers enjoyed by cyclists in more cycling-friendly countries.
• like all minority groups, cyclists become the target of prejudice from the media, the general population, and even the government and judiciary.
• as minority groups, cyclists find it more difficult to get any representation on important road-safety issues, e.g. poor infrastructure, and motorists who fail to share the roads properly with cyclists.

Australia is a perfect example of how forcing cyclists to wear helmets has had all the above negative effects. Cycling in Australia has never recovered from the introduction of mandatory helmet wearing almost 30 years ago, and it probably never will recover.

J'aurais aimé être né en France.
Hopefully correct mod translation for non French speakers: I wish I was born in France.