The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Wobblers]

Very impressive that you had the presence of mind and spatial awareness to accurately assess how far your head was off the floor when coming off at 20+mph. You've convinced me.

The memory of the road flashing by at some speed is not one that will leave me any time soon, much that I might wish it would. Funny that.

But if a sneeringly ad hominem smear is the best you can come up with, it just shows you have no argument, doesn't it?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Mod Note:
Keep it civil please, thanks

 

[Heltor Chasca]

 

[Rusty Nails]

The memory of the road flashing by at some speed is not one that will leave me any time soon, much that I might wish it would. Funny that.

But if a sneeringly ad hominem smear is the best you can come up with, it just shows you have no argument, doesn't it?

Genuine apologies if you felt the reply was sneering at you.

It was meant as an admittedly sarcastic, comparison with those times where helmet wearers are criticised/mocked for saying a helmet saved them from more severe injury. The reality is there is no way of knowing, with any certainty, what would have happened, but that people very often subconsciously look for outcomes that support their own personal choices about helmet wearing. We believe what we want to believe about helmet wearing and that should not be an issue of contention or tribalism for people in either camp.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a bit of a fashion trend influencing the choice of the wearers to finish off their outfit with a swanky lid.

 

[Mugshot]

but have often been challenged myself (even shouted at by a passing stranger) over my bare-headed cycling habit.

I think it's a given for a bare header unfortunately
As you took the time to mention your wooly hat saved my life episode up thread, I'll drop my motorist that threatened to punch me for not wearing a helmet into the mix

 

[Rusty Nails]

You're right that there is no way of knowing what good helmets are (otherwise helmet manufacturers would be using safety results in their publicity), and that their use is a largely matter of faith/belief. Which would be fine except that someone somewhere is making shedloads of money out of people's faith-based decisions on the back of "dangerising" a safe and healthy activity by selling them a plastic safety item with no evidence to support its use.

And it's not a matter of 'tribalism', but of 'evangelism' as this thread's title demonstrates. Once again, I have never ever challenged a helmet-wearer unbidden about their choice, but have often been challenged myself (even shouted at by a passing stranger) over my bare-headed cycling habit.

You are right.

And faith/belief and evangelism work both ways.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

And it's not a matter of 'tribalism', but of 'evangelism' as this thread's title demonstrates. Once again, I have never ever challenged a helmet-wearer unbidden about their choice, but have often been challenged myself (even shouted at by a passing stranger) over my bare-headed cycling habit.

This, the number of times you get challenged about your choice not to wear a helmet. Like a religious fervour which may as well be about the choice of whether to wear shorts or trousers on a particular day.

 

[MontyVeda]

I think it's a given for a bare header unfortunately
As you took the time to mention your wooly hat saved my life episode up thread, I'll drop my motorist that threatened to punch me for not wearing a helmet into the mix

I'm racking my brain trying to think of the last time I was criticised for not wearing a helmet.. It's been mentioned in passing but that seems no more significant that someone noting that I'm left handed... actual criticisms or heartfelt pleas really are incredibly rare, IME.

 

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 5484011, member: 9609"]come off it - those wild and fanciful guesstimates that you come up with earlier (all attached to 'i'm a physicist') could not possibly be taken seriously. I think we need some real facts not spurious figures plucked out of thin air that surprise surprise back up your own beliefs.[/QUOTE]

I assume you include your own guesstimates as not to be taken seriously?

[QUOTE 5481911, member: 9609"]jeez - I never think cycling is that dangerous until I read these threads. I reckon about 10% of us seem to get mangled at some point every year. Seriously it is one dangerous hobby. View attachment 444117 [/QUOTE]

 

[Rusty Nails]

No, that is not correct. The evangelism here all goes one way. I don't much care if you want to wear a ridiculous plastic hat. I do care about people being exploited by mendacious marketing techniques, and cycling being made out to be a dangerous activity that requires specialist equipment and unusual amounts of "bravery".

Evangelism........."zealous advocacy or support of a particular cause". Reading through the helmet threads this certainly goes both ways.

The mockery certainly seems to go more one way than the other e.g. Ridiculous plastic helmet.

Some types of cycling are more dangerous than others. I am not aware of people bringing bravery into the argument, although now you mention it some of the more extreme downhill stuff does require bravery and some special equipment. Going to the shops less so, except possibly a basket.

Marketing techniques can be mendacious in any field. Goes with the territory.

 

[Tenacious Sloth]

I have to wear a helmet ‘cos my hair doesn’t match my sunglasses.

 

[mjr]

I cannot understand all this aggro about wearing or not wearing. It's your head so do as you see fit about what you put on it. As far as preaching is concerned it seems that both sides are more than a bit preachy about it.

The trouble is that what you put on your head is not only about your head. As well as the previously-mentioned perpetuation of the discouraging idea that cycling to the shops is an extreme sport requiring armour, successive UK governments have said that the low usage rate is a key reason why they don't attempt to force usage by law, so each extra helmet user is a head closer to compulsion.

As far as preaching is concerned, find some rides that force people to ride WITHOUT helmets - even vintage rides I've done allow people to use anachronistic modern helmets if they want. Compare with how many rides you can find that force people to ride WITH helmets. Here's 146 to start with https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/events?&zuv_bc_discipline_filter_id=5 - helmet preaching is overwhelmingly one-way except from a few enlightened forums and mass cycling advocates. And despite that and helmet-pushers twisting media producers' arms Mary-Whitehouse-style to show overwhelmingly helmet users, still only a minority of UK cyclists use the lumps of rarely-recycled plastics.

 

[classic33]

The trouble is that what you put on your head is not only about your head. As well as the previously-mentioned perpetuation of the discouraging idea that cycling to the shops is an extreme sport requiring armour, successive UK governments have said that the low usage rate is a key reason why they don't attempt to force usage by law, so each extra helmet user is a head closer to compulsion.

As far as preaching is concerned, find some rides that force people to ride WITHOUT helmets - even vintage rides I've done allow people to use anachronistic modern helmets if they want. Compare with how many rides you can find that force people to ride WITH helmets. Here's 146 to start with https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/events?&zuv_bc_discipline_filter_id=5 - helmet preaching is overwhelmingly one-way except from a few enlightened forums and mass cycling advocates. And despite that and helmet-pushers twisting media producers' arms Mary-Whitehouse-style to show overwhelmingly helmet users, still only a minority of UK cyclists use the lumps of rarely-recycled plastics.

Who but yourself is suggesting that armour is required for cycling to the shops. And would it need to be a full suit?

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 5484011, member: 9609"]come off it - those wild and fanciful guesstimates that you come up with earlier (all attached to 'i'm a physicist') could not possibly be taken seriously. I think we need some real facts not spurious figures plucked out of thin air that surprise surprise back up your own beliefs.

6000 rad per second every second ? so if your helmet had touched the ground for half a second your head would be spinning at 28,600 rpm ?
gosh, that would make you a bit giddy.[/QUOTE]

"Wild and fanciful" - yet another example of dismissal by ad hominem. I remember thinking at the time Fark, that's close as the road flashed by right in front of my nose. The bruises on my shoulders also indicated that I'd come very close to striking my head.

An acceleration of 7200 rads/s^2 will bring the tangential velocity of a helmet with a 12 cm radius to 10 m/s in 0.1 s. That is a very long collision time: it assumes a considerable degree of skidding. That time would be considerably shorter should a helmet snag on anything. This is all A-level physics at most: you could have done the calculations yourself. That is is sufficient to cause severe injury is exactly the point.