The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Cycling_Samurai]

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

hopefully at the end of day the lightweight, breathable, stylish polystyrene hat is just a fashion accessory. Don't want to wear one? then don't .

 

[MontyVeda]

hopefully at the end of day the lightweight, breathable, stylish polystyrene hat is just a fashion accessory. Don't want to wear one? then don't .

Thanks for the advice.

I'm still wondering what your thoughts are regarding helmets for pedestrians and motorists... the element of risk is either more or about the same as it is for cyclists, but i very much doubt there's a 'great helmet debate' on walkingchat or pistonheads. Why do you think that is?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

There's plenty research out there strongly support wearing cycling helmets to prevent or reduce brain injury.

Then you’ll be able to post here links to at least 20 published peer reviewed research that draw that conclusion.

 

[newfhouse]

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

There's plenty research out there strongly support wearing cycling helmets to prevent or reduce brain injury.

Where can I access this research, please? I came to my view about helmets through reading around the subject and there’s no reason I should stop now.

 

[mickle]

That's plain rubbish. Helmets do not cause accidents. 3 out of 5 bicycle accidents involve injury to the head. Granted the number of actual bicycle accidents is relatively low. Your argument on the need to wear a helmet based on the number of actual head injuries is sound. I'll still wear a helmet to potentially avoid a more serious injury. Wearing a helmet doesn't make me more likely to have an accident.

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that 3/5 bicycle accidents involve injury to the head.

 

[mjr]

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

No, but there are people who can ride recumbent who are unable to ride higher cycles.

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.

I wasn't thinking of the UCI. As far as I know, their events are overwhelmingly races, which I've said before are obviously subject to whatever impediments and other silly rules that the organiser wishes to include. I understand they regulate socks as well as hats.

 

[Profpointy]

Then you’ll be able to post here links to at least 20 published peer reviewed research that draw that conclusion.

I'd settle for a single one that wasn't deeply flawed, mistaken, or outright dishonest.

The now notorious, but well intentioned Rivera, Thomson, Rivera paper, inadvertently compared nice middle class helmeted kids cycling in parks and supervised against inner city kids cycling unhelmetted in busy roads. Astonishingly the pro helmet evidence showed and even stronger correlation with reduced lower leg jnjuries. Despite the flaws in the paper, self serving organisations like RoSPA and others used the bogus results in propaganda because it seems the ends justified the means.

Then more recently I was close to eating my words and reverting to helmet advocacy after reading a paper which compared head injury vs other injury stats pre and post compulsion in Australia - for me a good and convincing approach, but on reading the words they'd taken a different time slice on the evidence than that for compulsion. It wasn't mere cherry picking data but looked liked deliberate dishonesty, which frankly shocked me as Rivera T R did at least mean well.

If helmets really did help, surely there'd be overwhelming evidence rather than shonky papers and outright lies. Every instinct tells
me I'm safer in a helmet, but the evidence doesn't back that up. I have to back the evidence against my instinct

 

[Cycling_Samurai]

I'd settle for a single one that wasn't deeply flawed, mistaken, or outright dishonest.

The now notorious, but well intentioned Rivera, Thomson, Rivera paper, inadvertently compared nice middle class helmeted kids cycling in parks and supervised against inner city kids cycling unhelmetted in busy roads. Astonishingly the pro helmet evidence showed and even stronger correlation with reduced lower leg jnjuries. Despite the flaws in the paper, self serving organisations like RoSPA and others used the bogus results in propaganda because it seems the ends justified the means.

Then more recently I was close to eating
my words and reverting to helmet advocacy after reading a paper which compared head injury vs other injury stats pre and post compulsion in australia - for me a good and convincing approach, but on reading the words they'd taken a different time slice on the evidence than that for compulsion. It wasn't mere cherry picking data but looked liked deliberate dishonesty, which frankly shocked me as Riverat T R did at least mean well.

If helmets really did help, surely there'd be overwhelming evidence rather than shonky papers and outright lies. Every instinct tells
me I'm safer in a helmet, but the evidence doesn't back that up. I have to back the evidence against my instinct

I don't need some study (flawed or not) that says wearing helmets is safer than not. It's much easier to attach a mirror to my helmet than my head. Encase my head is to impact a surface the hopefully the helmet reduces the injury. If by chance I wasn't wearing a helmet whilst cycling and my head to impact a surface which resulted in serious injury to my head I would be wondering why didn't I wear a helmet? Oh yeah because those gents on cyclechat said helmets are useless, no one should wear them.

Wear a helmet or don't. Your decision.

 

[Arrowfoot]

If helmets really did help, surely there'd be overwhelming evidence rather than shonky papers and outright lies. Every instinct tells
me I'm safer in a helmet, but the evidence doesn't back that up. I have to back the evidence against my instinct

Any research that shows helmets are indeed harmful or dangerous?

 

[matticus]

This thread is now a lot easier for me to read since making a small adjustment. I'd recommend it to others!

 

[newfhouse]

It's much easier to attach a mirror to my helmet than my head.

I’m wondering if this a wind up now.

Oh yeah because those gents on cyclechat said helmets are useless, no one should wear them.

Nobody has said that. You said you had seen good research that said we should wear one. You were asked to share it. You didn’t. What conclusion should be drawn from that?

Wear a helmet or don't. Your decision.

It is, but your advice is that I should, yes? Do you still believe that riding without a helmet is foolish behaviour? That I’m a fool because of my choice?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Wear a helmet or don't. Your decision

That's been the overall sentiment on here for years. Then you come along asking for the thread to be locked and calling non-wearers fools but don't evidence your position other than offer the classic 'stands to reason' line.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Mod note:

This latest round of argument has gone on long enough. Time to give it a rest now.

I'll drop in a reminder here of the site guidelines and rules and particularly draw your attention to those related to conduct and trolling.

No more until there is something new to add please.

Thanks.

 

[Profpointy]

Any research that shows helmets are indeed harmful or dangerous?

I don't think many of us would necessarily go as far as to claim that. However, given the Australian experience indicates that on average helmets make little difference, to me that suggests they sometimes make things worse, as that balances out the times they presumably help. For me it's harder to believe they don't make a difference in each and every individual accident, so sometimes good sometimes bad cancelling out is more plausible to me

 

[Dave Davenport]

I'm not a fan of mirrors for cyclists wherever they're attached, I think people are likely to get too reliant on them and neglect proper observation, plus there's less communication with other roads users. Obviously, if you've got any issues that impair your ability to look behind they could be a big help.