The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

Any evidence at all that your helmet helped in any of your cycling crashes?

No I didn't hit my head.

 

[ufkacbln]

Cycling isn't dangerous

It can be if you ride like a muppet, ride fast centimetres away from the person in front etc

But for the average leisure cyclist it is a safe pastime for which the benefits far outweigh any risk

 

[Justinslow]

If you are unlucky enough to have an accident it will nearly always be through misjudgement / lack of skill on your part,

Really?

 

[martint235]

No I didn't hit my head.

So why wear a helmet? Why encourage others to wear a helmet? Your own experience aligns with other peoples' experiences: professional cyclists tend to break their collarbones; me, not being a professional, tend to break my ribs; you didn't hit your head.

And yet people promote the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity and that a piece of polystyrene wrapped in plastic will mitigate the risk of serious injury.

 

[Justinslow]

So why wear a helmet? Why encourage others to wear a helmet? Your own experience aligns with other peoples' experiences: professional cyclists tend to break their collarbones; me, not being a professional, tend to break my ribs; you didn't hit your head.

And yet people promote the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity and that a piece of polystyrene wrapped in plastic will mitigate the risk of serious injury.

I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything, I wear a helmet and that is up to me, not you. What other people do is up to them.
If cycling wasn't dangerous would we have all the "cyclist down" threads or the "cyclists looking for advice after an accident" threads on this here forum?

 

[martint235]

I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything, I wear a helmet and that is up to me, not you. What other people do is up to them.
If cycling wasn't dangerous would we have all the "cyclist down" threads or the "cyclists looking for advice after an accident" threads on this here forum?

I can't be bothered to go looking for the stats but I'm sure they are already in this thread somewhere showing that per million miles travelled cycling is one of the safest modes of transport.
If there was a forum called PedestrianChat just imagine how many posts there would be of Pedestrian Down: hit by cars; hit by cyclists; hit by other pedestrians; had heart attack: tripped over paving slab etc etc.

 

[Tin Pot]

I thought pedantry was prohibited in this thread?

Something is regarded dangerous if it is likely to result in significant injury.

Because some people get injured sometimes does not make something dangerous.

You are being pedantic.

Stop it.

 

[mjr]

If you are unlucky enough to have an accident it will nearly always be through misjudgement / lack of skill on your part, not the actions of a third party.

I actually agree with @Justinslow for once - I think @totallyfixed needs to rethink the above, especially given stats published by CTC like "Figures obtained from the Department for Transport reveal that cyclists - especially adults - generally aren't to blame and, in fact, more often the driver is"

And out of interest, what tests does a cycling helmet undergo that makes it relevant to the average road?

It's dropped onto a flat shape. Average roads have flat bits. It's dropped onto a kerb shape. Average roads have kerbs. It's no longer dropped onto a pebble shape because average roads never have any pebbles or stones or gravel or raised thermoplastic blips (aka white lines) on them. It's only dropped from a low height because only very short people such as children cycle.

 

[totallyfixed]

I actually agree with @Justinslow for once - I think @totallyfixed needs to rethink the above, especially given stats published by CTC like "Figures obtained from the Department for Transport reveal that cyclists - especially adults - generally aren't to blame and, in fact, more often the driver is"


It's dropped onto a flat shape. Average roads have flat bits. It's dropped onto a kerb shape. Average roads have kerbs. It's no longer dropped onto a pebble shape because average roads never have any pebbles or stones or gravel or raised thermoplastic blips (aka white lines) on them. It's only dropped from a low height because only very short people such as children cycle.

I don't need to rethink anything, you are looking at the stats where an accident involves a motor vehicle, the vast majority of cycling casualties do not, never have and hopefully never will.

 

[Justinslow]

I thought pedantry was prohibited in this thread?

Something is regarded dangerous if it is likely to result in significant injury.

Because some people get injured sometimes does not make something dangerous.

You are being pedantic.

Stop it.

Well I know several people who've had significant injury from cycling accidents, what's your definition of "likely"? Is skiing "likely" to result in significant injury? Is walking down the street "likely" to result in significant injury? According to many posters on here walking down the street IS "likely" to result in significant injury.......
If pedantry and trolling is prohibited on this thread why all the bullshit regarding melons and bananas?

 

[martint235]

It's the dropping from a low height that always makes me smile. I think it's a metre. My saddle is further from the road than that

 

[Tin Pot]

Well I know several people who've had significant injury from cycling accidents, what's your definition of "likely"? Is skiing "likely" to result in significant injury? Is walking down the street "likely" to result in significant injury?

Unless you only know several people, and they've only been cycling a few times, then thats irrelevant.

Skiing is not likely to result in significant injury, unless you are not prepared for the environment, not skilled enough for the environment, drunk and/or a novice or child.

Walking down the street is not likely to result in significant injury unless you are in Glasgow after dark and are English.

Walking, skiing and cycling are markedly different activities, so your analogies will only go so far. Suffice to say that the Helmet Debate goes on in skiing communities too, where there is great concern that helmets, like windshields on cars, create a false sense of security.

 

[ufkacbln]

Well I know several people who've had significant injury from cycling accidents, what's your definition of "likely"? Is skiing "likely" to result in significant injury? Is walking down the street "likely" to result in significant injury? According to many posters on here walking down the street IS "likely" to result in significant injury.......

I know that this thread does not require evidence, but as the "evidence" is anecdotal, here is an anecdotal reply

It is to do with reality

Having worked in Casualty departments for over thirty years, the simple facts are that pedestrians far outnumber the head injury admissions and deaths than cyclists...you may know several, I know of thousands.

Simple question...

So when two people are admitted with a life changing head injury is it in any way negligent for one not to have worn a helmet, but somehow acceptable for the other.

Unless there is an explanation why then it is simple hypocrisy to suggest that one should have been wearing a helmet and not the other

If pedantry and trolling is prohibited on this thread why all the bullshit regarding melons and bananas?

The real "bullshit" is the "bang your head against a wall with and without a helmet" test... leaving aside the thousands of reasons why it is futile such as impact angle, force, type of helmet, standard the helmet passes, security of fixing etc (all of which also apply equally to melons)

Do it with a helmet and is apparently unequivocal proof that a helmet is essential

Do it with a melon, and suddenly the same result is bullshit?

It is a simple comparison that shows the stupidity of the claims for the original test

Surely the test is valid or not?

It is the fact that if you accept the test is valid, you have to accept both results... or simply throw a petulant tantrum?

 

[mjr]

I don't need to rethink anything, you are looking at the stats where an accident involves a motor vehicle, the vast majority of cycling casualties do not, never have and hopefully never will.

Any evidence to support that claim? It certainly doesn't seem true for KSI reports.

 

[Justinslow]

I know that this thread does not require evidence, but as the "evidence" is anecdotal, here is an anecdotal reply

It is to do with reality

Having worked in Casualty departments for over thirty years, the simple facts are that pedestrians far outnumber the head injury admissions and deaths than cyclists...you may know several, I know of thousands.

Simple question...

So when two people are admitted with a life changing head injury is it in any way negligent for one not to have worn a helmet, but somehow acceptable for the other.

Unless there is an explanation why then it is simple hypocrisy to suggest that one should have been wearing a helmet and not the other




The real "bullshit" is the "bang your head against a wall with and without a helmet" test... leaving aside the thousands of reasons why it is futile such as impact angle, force, type of helmet, standard the helmet passes, security of fixing etc (all of which also apply equally to melons)

Do it with a helmet and is apparently unequivocal proof that a helmet is essential

Do it with a melon, and suddenly the same result is bullshit?

It is a simple comparison that shows the stupidity of the claims for the original test

Surely the test is valid or not?

It is the fact that if you accept the test is valid, you have to accept both results... or simply throw a petulant tantrum?

Ok so being a pedestrian is "likely to result in significant injury" therefore it must be dangerous, thanks. (Maybe it's all the senior citizens tripping over). I'm just gonna stay indoors forever, bugger, but I'll probably bang my head on a cupboard door........