The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

...and calling anyone who doesn't a fool?

No I was referring to myself not calling people a fool, it would be foolish for me to not wear chainsaw trousers or a cycle helmet.

 

[Mugshot]

Ok how about motorcycle helmets or horse riding helmets, both significantly more bulky than cycle helmets, do they snag and cause massive numbers of more injuries? Motorcycle helmets often have fairly promenant vents sticking out aswell. I don't see why you single out cycle helmets?

Answer at least one of my questions first please.

 

[Justinslow]

Yes. The difference is you clearly dont regard cycling as a normal everyday activity that ordinary everyday people can undertake. And that's the problem...

Could be, and there are so many facets of cycling- racers, mtb ers, pleasure riders,commuters, is this wrong? How many enthusiastic mountain bikers who use their bikes as intended don't wear helmets? You've already said you do, why, what's the difference if we are all "cyclists".

 

[Justinslow]

As @benb says above the fact is that there does not seem to be any significant benefit for helmet wearing when the data is examined.
I believe that in some situations they must help, I may even fall into the "well it's obvious innit" camp here. Low speed offs, protection from light abrasions and bumps. I could however well believe that a wolly hat could offer a similar level of cushioning. However for me the chances of the stars aligning in such a way that I was actually in the position where a helmet would help are so vanishingly remote as to be not worth taking notice of. When you start adding speed into the equation, for example in Gregs scenario, then the obvious answer seems to be "well of course I'd want something between my head and the road if I'm sliding along it" but when I look at a cycle helmet I cannot see anything other than a snapped neck as a result of the thing snagging on anything and everything it can grab on to. Again, I consider the chances of it happening to be remote, but could see that the helmet could very well make a bad situation worse.
I am intrigued which evidence that has been put to you here is convincing you to wear a helmet?

Just personal experiences and tales of other people's accidents which is how i started my involvement In this very thread. Do I need hard evidence?

 

[mjr]

I'd love someone to quantify the benefits and identify the circumstances regarding the current technology.

I've not read this fully and I've disliked other SWOV publications but I recently saw http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf which says "the risk of head injury is a factor of 1.72 higher for cyclists without a bicycle helmet" or to reverse that, a cycle helmet seems to reduce the risk by 42% - but notes that helmet-wearers suffer more neck injuries and "if all injuries to both head and neck are considered in combination, the risk increase is smaller" and the helmet benefit is only a 15% reduction of the risk of being in the head-or-neck-injury 47%.

That reduction in risk is assuming you suffer a serious injury crash, which is a roughly once-in-150,000-mile event on current awful UK figures IIRC.

Indeed, and to ask some hard questions about the lack of any significant improvement over time.

As others have pointed out, tests have become progressively weaker. Snell B85 was weak enough that open-face helmets could pass it, then Snell B95 was the last major standard to test falling onto a (smooth, idealised) rock and the EN 1078 currently most common in the UK is seen as the weakest of the major standards on http://www.bhsi.org/stdsummary.htm

it is not " come here to agree with the anti- cycling helmet lobby".

Oi, we're the pro-cycling anti-helmet lobby!

The anti-cycling lobby are the ones who like helmets most.

Scaremongering BS like this makes be so angry.

I've asked it before and I'll probably ask it again: why do only the helmet compellers need to resort to such scaremongering?

I presume you mean scalp and not head. Any idea how long I'd have to slide along tarmac on my head to grind a hole in my skull? Any idea how long I'd have to slide along tarmac on my head to grind a hole in a helmet shell? Why aren't I lifting my head off the road or protecting it with my arms? Am I out cold, I guess I could well be.

So any idea of the likelihood of said helmet not suffering a catastrophic failure from its initial impact with the tarmac which renders me insensible in your high-speed crash scenario.

It's hard to quantify, but if the initial high-speed crash impact exceeds the protective limit of the helmet (76 Joules, equivalent to 12mph vertical freefall) and is still sufficient to knock you out cold, then I think it's unlikely that the remnants are going to do anything other than break away immediately as you slide along the tarmac.

it's now coming out that some of you arnt quite as "hardcore" as you make out.

We were only hardcore in your dreams, me duck

a, I do identify myself as a cyclist
b, I do wear special clothing
c, do wear a helmet
Maybe this is the difference.

I doubt that because I know other cyclists who call themselves such, wear lycra but no helmet (which is fine in most TTs AIUI). Maybe if you also add "d, started club cycling after the UCI helmet rules were introduced in 1991"?

 

[ufkacbln]

To me one of the most "hardcore" cyclists I ever met used to bimble down to the shops and back, averaging about 10mph

Every day come rain snow ice or gales

Then again he was 98

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Could be, and there are so many facets of cycling- racers, mtb ers, pleasure riders,commuters, is this wrong? How many enthusiastic mountain bikers who use their bikes as intended don't wear helmets? You've already said you do, why, what's the difference if we are all "cyclists".

Until cycling is seen as a normal thing that normal people do in normal clothes it is doomed to remain a marginalised activity undertaken by eccentrics in strange clothes and stranger hats.

And as a result our shared spaces in towns/cities will continue to be dominated by motor traffic and lives will be cut short and bodies maimed as a result.

 

[Mugshot]

Just personal experiences and tales of other people's accidents which is how i started my involvement In this very thread. Do I need hard evidence?

I don't think that answers the question I'm sorry, what you said was this;

You can throw all the evidence you like my way, I will still wear a helmet when i choose, it is my right, you have the right to not wear one, based on that same evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you saying that the evidence which some use to come to a decision to not wear a helmet, some of which has been presented to you in this thread you are using to reach the opposite conclusion?

 

[mjr]

The more that helmet-wearing is seen as the norm, and 'just common sense', the easier it would be for compulsion to become a reality. I think it's always worth countering glib assumptions with evidence, but

Just to counter a glib assumption, helmet-wearing is not the norm, as only 34% of UK cyclists do (according to ETSC PIN Flash 29, and I feel it's a big overestimate but I live in a very pro-cycling rare-helmet area)... but it may indeed be "seen as the norm" as the helmet-compellers seem to have control of media coverage, education and sport at the moment.

 

[Justinslow]

People like Justinslow often say 'anti-helmet', but most of us are in fact anti-compulsion. The more that helmet-wearing is seen as the norm, and 'just common sense', the easier it would be for compulsion to become a reality. I think it's always worth countering glib assumptions with evidence, but then if someone decides to troll for a laugh there's not much any of us can do.

You are accusing me of trolling?
I can assure you I'm not.
I don't want compulsory helmet wearing either as I've said many times.
I am just puzzled that so many contributors to this thread seem so anti bike helmet but then say "oh but I always use one off road" or "I use one when I'm group riding" hey @GrumpyGregry. Did you not refer to a bike helmet as a "ceiling tile"?
Surely with the song and dance you have made you wouldn't wear one in any situation? Is this not called hypercritical? Taking your logic what's the difference falling off on the road or falling off on a rock or a tree?

 

[MontyVeda]

...
I am just puzzled that so many contributors to this thread seem so anti bike helmet but then say "oh but I always use one off road" or "I use one when I'm group riding"
...

Simple risk assessment innit...

I would wear a helmet for white water kayaking, but not when canoeing on a lake.
I would wear helmet for downhill MTB, but not for pootling along the disused railway.
I would wear safety goggles when using my router, but not my drill.
I would wear a helmet when climbing in the lakes, but not walking in the lakes (and I've been at the foot of a crag with kids at the top lobbing rocks off!).

...the full list would be endless and often contradictory, but we all do it.

 

[ufkacbln]

You are accusing me of trolling?
I can assure you I'm not.
I don't want compulsory helmet wearing either as I've said many times.
I am just puzzled that so many contributors to this thread seem so anti bike helmet but then say "oh but I always use one off road" or "I use one when I'm group riding" hey @GrumpyGregry. Did you not refer to a bike helmet as a "ceiling tile"?
Surely with the song and dance you have made you wouldn't wear one in any situation? Is this not called hypercritical? Taking your logic what's the difference falling off on the road or falling off on a rock or a tree?

If instead of ignoring the posts and refusing to answer because of your "beliefs" you had actually considered what has been posted then the mater is clear
The "anti bike helmet" is not the case

It is challenging the refusal of individuals to accept evidence, reality as they try to impose their beliefs

It is about choice and making that an informed choice

Refusing to recognise that accidents can be prevented, or risk reduced is simply unrealistic and unhelpful, to say the least.

What needs to be recognised is that there is evidence and people have a right to make their own decisions

It can be that a person will undertake a rip to the shops, tour or undertake a commute without a helmet because they feel that they have reduced their risk sufficiently that itis not required.

The same person can then go racing, out in bad weather or ice and decide that due to the increased risk a helmet may be worthwhile

It is that simple

 

[Justinslow]

Simple risk assessment innit...

I would wear a helmet for white water kayaking, but not when canoeing on a lake.
I would wear helmet for downhill MTB, but not for pootling along the disused railway.
I would wear safety goggles when using my router, but not my drill.
I would wear a helmet when climbing in the lakes, but not walking in the lakes (and I've been at the foot of a crag with kids at the top lobbing rocks off!).

...the full list would be endless and often contradictory, but we all do it.

Yes we do,thats pretty much what I do aswell, as I've stated many times, I don't need a bucket load of "evidence" to make my own mind up.
I think some of you are so paranoid regarding "compulsion" and comparing cycling with "walking" or "drinking beer" that you forget what you actually do yourselves, hence @MontyVeda saying what he just has.

 

[Justinslow]

If instead of ignoring the posts and refusing to answer because of your "beliefs" you had actually considered what has been posted then the mater is clear
The "anti bike helmet" is not the case

It is challenging the refusal of individuals to accept evidence, reality as they try to impose their beliefs

It is about choice and making that an informed choice

Refusing to recognise that accidents can be prevented, or risk reduced is simply unrealistic and unhelpful, to say the least.

What needs to be recognised is that there is evidence and people have a right to make their own decisions

It can be that a person will undertake a rip to the shops, tour or undertake a commute without a helmet because they feel that they have reduced their risk sufficiently that itis not required.

The same person can then go racing, out in bad weather or ice and decide that due to the increased risk a helmet may be worthwhile

It is that simple

I've tried to answer what I can whilst trying to work.
I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone far from it, again as I've said many times, remember there are occasions where I don't use a helmet which I stated and put up a pic showing this many pages ago.
I'm fully aware that accident prevention is important obviously, but that will not stop accidents occurring.
The rest of your post I agree with completely.

 

[MontyVeda]

i do think getting pissed up on a saturday night in town is riskier than cycling* tho... just saying. I have a 'pissed up' scar on my forehead.

* everyday utility cycling