The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Grammar, we love you
Grammar, we do
Though you may be far away
We think of you

 

[Tin Pot]

Wearing is a poor indicator

New riders wear one because shops sell them bicycles hav stickers telling you t wear them and they are bullied by stories in the press

Clubs and groups also have a higher rate because they make it compulsory?

Indeed - I got into cycling again just two years ago and thought helmets were compulsory.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Or is it just you're happy to wear one and not the other and thus so compulsion is fine if and only if you already do it?

Yes, I think you are right here.
I would say this is the case for many laws.
For example, here it is not allowed to drink alcohol in parks. I hardly noticed this law, because I don't drink.
This law makes sharing a glass of wine at a picnic - like a bike a ride in the park? - equal to being legless on Buckfast - descending Mt. Ventoux without helmet?
If the majority of people don't feel strongly enough about an issue, legislation for "everybody's safety" will be passed.

 

[Profpointy]

apart from helmets per se I'm very wary of any restriction "for people's own good" especially when didcated by non -participants. compulsory training, insurance, must use cycle lanes would all sound sensible to readers of a certain (loosely speaking) "newspaper". We've previously had calls to ban winter hillwalking, and reacue insurance for cavers (who are rescued by volunteer other cavers by the way).

I won't descend to the near-Godwinian quotation - but you all know it. It's a tricky thing favouring banning )or compulsion) of something you're not so bothered about

 

[oldroadman]

apart from helmets per se I'm very wary of any restriction "for people's own good" especially when didcated by non -participants. compulsory training, insurance, must use cycle lanes would all sound sensible to readers of a certain (loosely speaking) "newspaper". We've previously had calls to ban winter hillwalking, and reacue insurance for cavers (who are rescued by volunteer other cavers by the way).

I won't descend to the near-Godwinian quotation - but you all know it. It's a tricky thing favouring banning )or compulsion) of something you're not so bothered about

The best thing for "people's own good" would be banning certain rags impersonating newspapers. One very fast one, and one postal one.

 

[classic33]

apart from helmets per se I'm very wary of any restriction "for people's own good" especially when didcated by non -participants. compulsory training, insurance, must use cycle lanes would all sound sensible to readers of a certain (loosely speaking) "newspaper". We've previously had calls to ban winter hillwalking, and reacue insurance for cavers (who are rescued by volunteer other cavers by the way).

I won't descend to the near-Godwinian quotation - but you all know it. It's a tricky thing favouring banning )or compulsion) of something you're not so bothered about

But you have police co-ordinators, fire service, ambulance(sometimes air ambulance) and hospital treatment. And does being a volunteer mean that the person should be grateful he can volunteer. I've done fell rescue, in the middle of winter. Going out after people who went without the basic equipment required for the conditions.
Wet weather cycling, you'd laugh at the person that complained about getting wet all the time but didn't think they'd require any special equipment/clothing to stay dry.

 

[Profpointy]

But you have police co-ordinators, fire service, ambulance(sometimes air ambulance) and hospital treatment. And does being a volunteer mean that the person should be grateful he can volunteer. I've done fell rescue, in the middle of winter. Going out after people who went without the basic equipment required for the conditions.
Wet weather cycling, you'd laugh at the person that complained about getting wet all the time but didn't think they'd require any special equipment/clothing to stay dry.

quit right - ban all theae hillwalkers, they should do a special test and have insurance.

or didn't you quite mean that

 

[shouldbeinbed]

(Do I get threadbanned for that?)

Haha, you aint not getting out that easy.

 

[winjim]

Haha, you aint not getting out that easy.

I'm going to keep trying.

@shouldbeinbed is a Silly Billy.

There you go, personal abuse. If that doesn't get the mods reaching for the ban hammer, I don't know what will.

 

[double0jedi]

Ok I do understand the " right to decide" argument, and personally I don't think it could ever be made a mandatory requirement to wear a helmet, too difficult to enforce. But surely they are of a benefit in preventing damage to the head ?

I mean bang your head without one...... ouch right ? Put one on and maybe not so ouchy?

I understand the logic of a helmet protecting your head but I don't see a logic to why not wearing one would be safer.
I am fairly new to cycling and wonder if someone could explain why they are considered, by some, to be so bad.

 

[Profpointy]

Ok I do understand the " right to decide" argument, and personally I don't think it could ever be made a mandatory requirement to wear a helmet, too difficult to enforce. But surely they are of a benefit in preventing damage to the head ?

I mean bang your head without one...... ouch right ? Put one on and maybe not so ouchy?

I understand the logic of a helmet protecting your head but I don't see a logic to why not wearing one would be safer.
I am fairly new to cycling and wonder if someone could explain why they are considered, by some, to be so bad.

You might think that, and to be fair that's where I started, but the satistics in real life in Australia and Ontario suggest that they havn't reduced the head injury risk at all, hey maybe worsened even, so something odd is going on. It's unarguable that they make your head bigger - so you'll unarguably hit it more often. Bear in mind from simple geometry you're talkjng about nearly double the cross sectional area. Then more speculatively there may or may not be more "rotational injuries" and "risk compensation" by riders and passing cars. Even if they do actually reduce risk, it's still valid to ask if it would be significanlty more risk-reduction than, say wearing one as a car passenger, or even as a pedestrian. "bound to help, why wouldn't you" after all.

For the record, I used to wear one, felt safer, and thout it foolish not to, but changed my view after looking into it.

Whilst not "evidence" as such I am also rather troubled when many (not all) of the pro campaigners - charities and the like - put forward dishonest, misleading and discredited statistics - why do this if there's good evidence? Maybe campaigners are marketeers not scientists but still.

Anyway, sorry to raise the tone of the thread with serous answer, but there it is

 

[JMAG]

It's unarguable that they make your head bigger - so you'll unarguably hit it more often. Bear in mind from simple geometry you're talkjng about nearly double the cross sectional area.

Falling off a bike is quite different to walking through a hail of bullets or a low doorway. I can understand a smaller target being harder to hit, but when your body is travelling head first towards an immovable object such as a road or car, I think the target (head) size is far less relevant. Do people with naturally larger heads suffer more head injuries in general?

In some cases a helmeted head might clip a car or a lampost where it might otherwise have not, but you might still be hitting the road with your head after missing said car or lampost. I haven't considered the near miss scenario before, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I have read comments before about the weight and extra height of a helmet altering your centre of gravity and increasing the chances of hitting your head. This also seems like clutching at straws as the effect would be negligible in an already unlikely scenario.

You often hear people say they were saved by their helmet, but you don't hear people saying they would have been screwed by a helmet or had a lucky escape by not wearing one. All I've heard from people who don't wear helmets is that they don't have accidents.

 

[martint235]

I hit my head on a fairly regular basis as I'm a teensy bit taller than your average doorway. I've not died yet.

The trouble with " my helmet saved my life" is you'll never know as you can't repeat the incident . There is no rigorous, evidenced testing done on a cycle helmet to show how it will behave in a real world situation and as has probably been said if an accident cracks your helmet you have a failed helmet.

So I have something that is uncomfortable to wear, makes my head sweaty and has no proven benefit so why on earth would I wear one?

It does appear to have been a fantastic piece of work by manufacturers that can persuade people to part with hundreds of pounds for no proven benefit. Imagine if we were discussing a medicine that said it protected you from cancer, the testing and regulation would be incredible

I'll probably end up putting this thread on ignore but couldn't help myself

 

[ufkacbln]

OBut surely they are of a benefit in preventing damage to the head ?

I mean bang your head without one...... ouch right ? Put one on and maybe not so ouchy?

At its most basic form this argument works.

However it raises another question

Let us assume that helmets do work 100%

Then why is it that only cyclists expected to wear them

All the statistics show that cyclist head injuries are only a small part of head injuries that occur.

If a cyclist has an "obligation" to wear one then why not a pedestrian, driver, or ohers?

We would have a far greater public health benefit and prevent far more head injuries

What is always avoided by quoting "risk", or simply ignoring the question.

 

[Profpointy]

Falling off a bike is quite different to walking through a hail of bullets or a low doorway. I can understand a smaller target being harder to hit, but when your body is travelling head first towards an immovable object such as a road or car, I think the target (head) size is far less relevant. Do people with naturally larger heads suffer more head injuries in general?

In some cases a helmeted head might clip a car or a lampost where it might otherwise have not, but you might still be hitting the road with your head after missing said car or lampost. I haven't considered the near miss scenario before, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I have read comments before about the weight and extra height of a helmet altering your centre of gravity and increasing the chances of hitting your head. This also seems like clutching at straws as the effect would be negligible in an already unlikely scenario.

You often hear people say they were saved by their helmet, but you don't hear people saying they would have been screwed by a helmet or had a lucky escape by not wearing one. All I've heard from people who don't wear helmets is that they don't have accidents.

not sure I understand why you think the bigger target argument doesn't apply but hey ho.

To answer your 2nd point I came off my bike, helmetless and landed on my shoulder. If my head had been helmetted and thus a couple of inches bigger it is extremely likeley that it would have hit the ground - and I would habe doubtless been onhere claiming it "saved my life". This is a true account by the way, not a debating point.

And you almost say it yourself, given the number of "helmet saved.my life stories" helmet wearers do seem to bash their heads a.lot - anecdote again maybe

Anyway, regardless of these thought experiments, and indeed anecdotes - the key point surely is they haven't improved safety in Australia, so on average, any good they do in one set of circumstances is presumably outweighed by the harm they do in others. I really can't see how anyone can avoid this conclusion.