The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[mjr]

It's not always just yourself that you may be helping. If wearing one makes someone else at ease over you cycling, would it hurt?

Maybe. It definitely can hurt in various ways, including how it hurt me. The difficult question is whether the expected hurt is more than the expected reduction in hurt, and best guess seems to be that it's too difficult to tell in general from the evidence we have so far, so no one should be promoting these things until we can show they're at least safe.

But being asked to parade around in it and laughed at sounds to me like there may be other reasons for the demand, such as discouraging cycling. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[classic33]

Maybe. It definitely can hurt in various ways, including how it hurt me. The difficult question is whether the expected hurt is more than the expected reduction in hurt, and best guess seems to be that it's too difficult to tell in general from the evidence we have so far, so no one should be promoting these things until we can show they're at least safe.

But being asked to parade around in it and laughed at sounds to me like there may be other reasons for the demand, such as discouraging cycling. I hope I'm wrong.

Why would a person, who may not cycle, be laughing at you for wearing a helmet to help put their mind at ease?

We need to prove that cycling isn't as dangerous as it may seem.

I used to wear a full face helmet to work. The "manager" decided to see what it felt like when he hit his head on the wall whilst wearing it. I hit him in the pocket, afterwards.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

We need to prove that cycling isn't as dangerous as it may seem..

It's already proven in the head injury stats. It's no more dangerous than being in a car or walking when it comes to head injury. Demand someone wears a helmet when driving or going for a walk and what do you think the response will be? Wearing a helmet gives the impression to others that it's more dangerous than these other activities plus also that a helmet is a reasonable adjustment to the actual risk. It's not.

 

[classic33]

It's already proven in the head injury stats. It's no more dangerous than being in a car or walking when it comes to head injury. Demand someone wears a helmet when driving or going for a walk and what do you think the response will be? Wearing a helmet gives the impression to others that it's more dangerous than these other activities plus also that a helmet is a reasonable adjustment to the actual risk. It's not.

Why do some demand that we have segregated cycle lanes? If the roads are that dangerous that we are asking(demanding) seperate facilities, how does that portray cycling?

Other than when there's obvious damage, I can't recall being asked if I'd hit the head, whilst walking. The questions are skewed when it comes to cycling injuries.

 

[mjr]

Why do some demand that we have segregated cycle lanes?

Easier to use, easier to follow, can be better designed, less polluted, less congested, can have fewer lights or stops if done well, can be shorter sometimes... the safety case is not the only reason, or even a particularly strong one IMO.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Why do some demand that we have segregated cycle lanes?

Because whilst something may be perfectly safe it may not be pleasant if stuck in traffic breathing in the fumes. Well designed segregatec cycle lanes can provide that pleasant environment that encourages more take up by making it visible in city centres leading to critical mass.

 

[Milzy]

Look, I haven’t read every post. I do think they should be a choice for adults however a friend of mine was knocked off on a roundabout almost 8 years ago. He didn’t have a helmet on but luckily recovered from some severe bruising of the skull & suffered cuts/scrapes etc. He’s still fighting to get some compensation but the drivers defence are saying he should have worn a helmet. If he had been, he’d have been paid out instead of having nothing 8 years past his accident.

 

[classic33]

Because whilst something may be perfectly safe it may not be pleasant if stuck in traffic breathing in the fumes. Well designed segregatec cycle lanes can provide that pleasant environment that encourages more take up by making it visible in city centres leading to critical mass.

Or as I found out today, "they built that for you lot, use it".

"It" runs alongside a road, with a small kerb seperating it. To non cyclists, it's seen as proof that cycling is dangerous. That dangerous that we require seperate facilities.

Like helmets, their use should remain the choice of the individual. Not a seperate body telling them that they have to use them.

To answer a point raised earlier, there are some people out there, who have been told that they should wear helmets in everyday use. Even when just walking. I fall into both groups, cyclists and those who've been told they should be wearing one day in day out. My choice on both, at present.

 

[classic33]

Look, I haven’t read every post. I do think they should be a choice for adults however a friend of mine was knocked off on a roundabout almost 8 years ago. He didn’t have a helmet on but luckily recovered from some severe bruising of the skull & suffered cuts/scrapes etc. He’s still fighting to get some compensation but the drivers defence are saying he should have worn a helmet. If he had been, he’d have been paid out instead of having nothing 8 years past his accident.

I'd be fighting that one. At present we've a choice on whether we wear them or not.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Or as I found out today, "they built that for you lot, use it".

"It" runs alongside a road, with a small kerb seperating it. To non cyclists, it's seen as proof that cycling is dangerous. That dangerous that we require seperate facilities.

Like helmets, their use should remain the choice of the individual. Not a seperate body telling them that they have to use them.

To answer a point raised earlier, there are some people out there, who have been told that they should wear helmets in everyday use. Even when just walking. I fall into both groups, cyclists and those who've been told they should be wearing one day in day out. My choice on both, at present.

Did you miss the well designed bit? Where did anyone say they are compulsory either? Noooo one. Anyway this is way off topic for this thread. Let's stick to Helmets rather than throw anything else you have just thought of.

 

[classic33]

Did you miss the well designed bit? Where did anyone say they are compulsory either? Noooo one. Anyway this is way off topic for this thread. Let's stick to Helmets rather than throw anything else you have just thought of.

I offerred another example of how cycling is seen as dangerous, because cyclists are asking for(demanding) their own facilities.

I've done more damage to the head on a day to day basis than I've ever done through cycling. Also the demand that a helmet, the last offerred being a trial of an inflatable helmet, be worn on a daily basis. Including when walking about.

I'm in a small group of people who are told that it/they may prevent injury. No guarantees given.

 

[snorri]

I can't say that I felt any safer, but every little helps I guess.

That's a plus then!
You did not feel safer so will continue to exercise similar caution while cycling.
Risk compensation can be a hazard of helmet wearing when the wearer may take more risks believing him/her self to be better protected than when cycling bareheaded.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I offerred another example of how cycling is seen as dangerous, because cyclists are asking for(demanding) their own facilities.

Pedestrians have their own facilities as in pavements. Does that mean being a pedestrian is seen as dangerous?

 

[mjr]

That's a plus then!
You did not feel safer so will continue to exercise similar caution while cycling.
Risk compensation can be a hazard of helmet wearing when the wearer may take more risks believing him/her self to be better protected than when cycling bareheaded.

From earlier in this thread:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...clists-take-more-risks-study-indicates-199184

It's far from the only drawback, though. There is another theory that warmer brains make worse decisions and cycle helmets are made of a thick insulating material, plus a number of people suffer being temporarily deafened by helmet wind noise - and unlike earphones, you can't quickly remove the cause if needed. More study is needed to understand why they don't work well in practice, but it gets a small fraction of the money put into even advertising hard hats.

 

[classic33]

Pedestrians have their own facilities as in pavements. Does that mean being a pedestrian is seen as dangerous?

Do they demand that their facilities, footpaths, be built. And do they demand extra ones alongside the ones already in place?

Bear in mind a bicycle is classified as a road vehicle.