The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

Breathable polystyrene. Is there such a thing?

when it looks like swiss cheese, i think so.

 

[mjr]

It was "hit your head during the[your] helmet wearing period". On here.

Which is a claim of correlation.

As far as I'm aware, repeated launching of an opponent head first at any object, in a martial arts class, would have you headed for the door.

Quite likely, but I certainly landed flat on my back many times, in a similar way to what can easily smash the back of a cycle helmet off.

Clarification was sought, but was never given.

Sorry. Apart from the obvious, the moderation of this thread appears to play havoc with the links from "Watched Threads" and I don't always remember to scroll up or visit previous pages to check for other new posts.

The implication being that the helmet caused the incidents, not the wearer.

No such implication was intended. What does UWSL mean?

Most cycle helmets don't weigh 2lb, your bag of sugar(Standard weight, other sizes available.)

I'll try to remember to write a bag of farking dried fruit next time. I apologise for being unaware of the British Standard for sugar bag sizes!

With regards no longer hitting your head whilst cycling, when no longer wearing/using a helmet. It's a very clear example of over compensation, on your part, for wearing/using something and expecting it to do things that the designers never had in mind. You took chances you wouldn't take when not wearing one. In effect you changed your cycling to suit not wearing one.

It is possible, but I am not aware of making any changes to my cycling style. Maybe the use of studded tyres on icy days is one... but the times I went sliding down the road on ice were not times where I hit my head. Generally the bruised bits were elbows, hips, knees or feet.

I think it's also possible that other things may be responsible for the difference.

And if I still fell victim to risk compensation despite being aware of it, having studied it on my way to a statistics degree, and despite actually having read the helmet manual so I should not have expected it "to do things the designers never had in mind", then what hope is there for any helmet user to avoid it? Does greater helmet use inevitably mean riskier cycling? And does that mean increased danger for walkers?

 

[Tripster]

Bit ableist, innit? Cycling only for the clever able-bodied? Maybe this is a common view among helmet users and that's why a lot of helmet-forcing events also ban recumbent tricycles.

I dont think able bodied has anything to do with it.

Fair enough... at the end of the day, a lightweight, breathable, stylish polystyrene hat is just a fashion accessory.

Like many things in life we are all entitled to opinions.

 

[Profpointy]

So you are saying the head is a target ? For what ? A car ? Bigger area to aim at ? You increase the size of your head with a helmet on a motorcycle so question still stands.

Don't really follow your point / question.

Are you truly suggesting that having a bigger head (so to speak) doesn't make it more likely to be hit ?

 

[Profpointy]

Hi lucky fool, I'm sure your post about your decision to not wear a helmet leaves you feeling vindicated. Well great no need to waste time posting about that then eh?

Interestingly one can smoke all of their lives and not get cancer. Then there are those who never smoke and get cancer. Same in regard to using sunblock.

Every person on earth is a pedestrian unless they can't walk. So I'm not inclined to take limited studies on the topic as a definitive answer.

Have a good day sir.

Yebbutt it's overwhelming proven that smoking is bad for you. There doesn't appear to be any good evidence that stands up to scrutiny that cycle helmets are particularly beneficial on average.

 

[Profpointy]

I often see statements like these used as an argument or defence and no doubt they are used for rhetoric, they are a perfect example of abusing statistics. The way they are written implies that the accidents will happen on a timescale and since the wavelength of this timescale is so much longer than a lifetime it is not going to happen.

Of course (and I assume the correspondents are well aware of this) this isn't how statistics work. You could have your serious accident in the first moment of your cycling career. Or you could have more than your fair share of accidents. Population-based statistics are of no consequence to an individual, as their personal risks will be dependent on very specific, local factors. I'm sure the person lying in a coma takes no comfort from the fact they 'took one for the team'.

As to the topic - I wear them. I ride mostly MTB, some gravel, some road. I've never hit my head in a fall but I'm content to carry the small level of injury mitigation with me in case I do. If there was a way of knowing when I was going to have the accident I'd only wear it on that ride.

You're final paragraph is "begging the question". The evidence doesn't seem to justify the assertion that wearing a helmet helps on average, so the injury mitigation claim is moot

 

[Tripster]

Don't really follow your point / question.

Are you truly suggesting that having a bigger head (so to speak) doesn't make it more likely to be hit ?

Im saying wearing a helmet doesnt make your head a target. Target is something or someone selected as the aim of an attack. Nothing deliberately targets a riders head because he dons a helmet. That was my point

 

[Profpointy]

Im saying wearing a helmet doesnt make your head a target. Target is something or someone selected as the aim of an attack. Nothing deliberately targets a riders head because he dons a helmet. That was my point

A bit of an odd quibble to split hairs on my use of the word target, given my point was surely abundantly clear.

 

[MontyVeda]

... As ugly as the polystyrene bonnet is I will stick with it

I'm curious. You don't wear it for protection, nor do you think they look good... is it peer pressure?

 

[Tripster]

I'm curious. You don't wear it for protection, nor do you think they look good... is it peer pressure?

Like I said up thread to you. My reasons for wearing are stated in another post if you had read back

 

[Cycling_Samurai]

yebbutt
Yebbutt it's overwhelming proven that smoking is bad for you. There doesn't appear to be any good evidence that stands up to scrutiny that cycle helmets are particularly beneficial on average.

Yebbutt it's overwhelming proven that cycling is good for you. There doesn't appear to be any good evidence that stands up to scrutiny that cycle helmets are particular beneficial on average.

Contrary what you say there actually is research done around the world which supports the wearing of cycle helmets.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

when it looks like swiss cheese, i think so.

So these people are riding with a layer of Swiss cheese round their heads. Probably about as much use and at least they’ll have something to eat.

 

[classic33]

It was "hit your head during the[your] helmet wearing period". On here.

As far as I'm aware, repeated launching of an opponent head first at any object, in a martial arts class, would have you headed for the door.

Clarification was sought, but was never given. The implication being that the helmet caused the incidents, not the wearer.

If the human neck had evolved to just support the weight of the head, then it could do a better job if the head didn't rotate upon and with the neck.

Most cycle helmets don't weigh 2lb, your bag of sugar(Standard weight, other sizes available.) Weight seems to come in at around the 10oz mark for most helmets, a third of your implied weight. Full-face helmets are closer to the "bag of sugar" weight you keep on throwing in. But how often do you see them in use on a road bike?

With regards no longer hitting your head whilst cycling, when no longer wearing/using a helmet. It's a very clear example of over compensation, on your part, for wearing/using something and expecting it to do things that the designers never had in mind. You took chances you wouldn't take when not wearing one. In effect you changed your cycling to suit not wearing one.

I've said this before, at present the choice of wearing one is mine. I'm not in favour of their use, by anyone cycling on the road, being banned. Nor am I for their compulsory use when cycling on the road. Shouting out for either will probably end in a load of people either giving up cycling or breaking the law on a regular basis.

It might be instinctive. It might be related to my years breaking my falls during martial arts classes. But the human neck evolved to support the human head. Just that. The head. Not the head plus a bag of sugar strapped to the top that contributes disproportionately to the turning force on the neck with a contribution proportional to the added weight multiplied by the distance from the joints.

Those are your conclusions and not claims that I remember ever making. I only point out the correlation. It may be, as is often suggested, that helmet use and crashing are linked through some intermediate steps, or maybe both caused by a third factor.

It was "hit your head during the[your] helmet wearing period". On here.

mjr said:
And I've been riding over 40, something like 17 of them (1996 to 2013) using a helmet, and in a completely unrepresentative one person study, I only hit my head in the helmet-using period, except for a tree branch in 2013. In my reckless younger days, I face-slammed the floor running a few times and occasionally even walking, but not cycling, not even sliding down the ungritted roads feet first after parting company with my road bike on the way to school. Yet helmet wearers frequently pop up showing the results of their latest ground-head failure. Make of that what you will. Maybe it doesn't apply to anyone else.

As far as I'm aware, repeated launching of an opponent head first at any object, in a martial arts class, would have you headed for the door.

Clarification was sought, but was never given. The implication being that the helmet caused the incidents, not the wearer.

If the human neck had evolved to just support the weight of the head, then it could do a better job if the head didn't rotate upon and with the neck.

Most cycle helmets don't weigh 2lb, your bag of sugar(Standard weight, other sizes available.) Weight seems to come in at around the 10oz mark for most helmets, a third of your implied weight. Full-face helmets are closer to the "bag of sugar" weight you keep on throwing in. But how often do you see them in use on a road bike?

With regards no longer hitting your head whilst cycling, when no longer wearing/using a helmet. It's a very clear example of over compensation, on your part, for wearing/using something and expecting it to do things that the designers never had in mind. You took chances you wouldn't take when not wearing one. In effect you changed your cycling to suit not wearing one.

I've said this before, at present the choice of wearing one is mine. I'm not in favour of their use, by anyone cycling on the road, being banned. Nor am I for their compulsory use when cycling on the road. Shouting out for either will probably end in a load of people either giving up cycling or breaking the law on a regular basis.
-------

Which is a claim of correlation.

But not an answer to the question asked earlier.

Quite likely, but I certainly landed flat on my back many times, in a similar way to what can easily smash the back of a cycle helmet off.

Relying on landing on a foam crash mat by any chance, or the hard floor. Was any protective headwear worn in these classes?

Sorry. Apart from the obvious, the moderation of this thread appears to play havoc with the links from "Watched Threads" and I don't always remember to scroll up or visit previous pages to check for other new posts.

No such implication was intended. What does UWSL mean?

The implication was given, and in the light of no clarification from you, it was taken as posted.
UWSL was never used by me. Post, including quoted posts, included in this one, as proof, in italics.

I'll try to remember to write a bag of farking dried fruit next time. I apologise for being unaware of the British Standard for sugar bag sizes!

Keep your insults to yourself.
Which means your analogy was incorrect. You threw something in, to back a claim, whilst not knowing the two were never close to each other.
The bag of dried fruit may well be closer in weight(I checked the weight, 500 gram and 1Kg are common weights) is still heavier than the helmet. Although it would probably be lower in overall height than the bag of sugar.

It is possible, but I am not aware of making any changes to my cycling style. Maybe the use of studded tyres on icy days is one... but the times I went sliding down the road on ice were not times where I hit my head. Generally the bruised bits were elbows, hips, knees or feet.

I think it's also possible that other things may be responsible for the difference.

Maybe, as given by yourself in an earlier answer, it "was instinctive" in your riding style(It's not there any more), along with changes you actually remember taking.

And if I still fell victim to risk compensation despite being aware of it, having studied it on my way to a statistics degree, and despite actually having read the helmet manual so I should not have expected it "to do things the designers never had in mind", then what hope is there for any helmet user to avoid it? Does greater helmet use inevitably mean riskier cycling? And does that mean increased danger for walkers?

you may well have read the manual, but how much of that was retained after reading it and putting it back in the box. It's surprising just how little is actually remembered.
As regards the risk to walkers, I've cracked my skull on concrete, steel and tarmac. This led to me being asked to take part in trials for the inflatable helmet. Similar technology to airbags in cars being used.

 

[classic33]

Bit ableist, innit? Cycling only for the clever able-bodied? Maybe this is a common view among helmet users and that's why a lot of helmet-forcing events also ban recumbent tricycles.

Is this an attempt at stereotyping recumbent riders as less able. If so, it's in poor taste.

A bit of research on your part will reveal that the UCI banned recumbents in the 1930's. Nearly everything since then has been concentrated on the upright bicycle.

 

[Cycling_Samurai]

You need to read it again and yes wearing a helmet does increase the risk of you having an accident. It’s called risk compensation and is well studied and proven. It even shows up in the accident stats.

Proven by who? I've read research that says risk compensation is minimal at best to negligible in saying there is increased risk. Who's accident stats? Reputable sources reference riding in numbers being a more effective deterrent to preventing cycling accidents involving vehicles than riding in small numbers. There's plenty research out there strongly support wearing cycling helmets to prevent or reduce brain injury.