thinking of getting a helmet after what ive seen!!

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes I have heard of such. I am not disputing that more head injuries occur whilst walking. I would like to know how the figures break down however. ie where the person was walking, was alcohol involved, were third parties involved.

From my own perspective I have been walking since the age of 3 and have never suffered head injury as a result of a fall. I have had a few bumps from tripping when running. However in the three years I have been cycling (as an adult) I have had numerous offs and have cracked several helmets. Pretty sure I would be flicking my bottom lip and drooling if not for the protection the helmet offered.

As for the use of stats, more Americans die in toilet related accidents than through shark attacks so on that basis you are safe to swim with sharks but not to use the loo!

Ever heard of whiplash and rotational brain injuries? People in car accidents do suffer serious head injuries. The fact is you can also suffer serious head injuries while walking, and that is where most head injuries occur. So, why aren't you wearing a helmet every time you walk somewhere?

 

[ianrauk]

 

[jethro10]

As a motorcycle rider, bicycle helmets have always seemed a little daft to me.
A strange compromise - a full face helmet would clearly offer more safety, but be too uncomfortable.
I can't see how much good a teeny little hat does.

I mean, this wing mirror example - nothing to stop the back of your head being hit where the helmet doesn't cover.

Corner case scenarios are never helpful to anyone.
all it does is prolong needless debate and are often used by kiddies just to annoy the "other side".

I could easily add "oh, a little green alien send a 3gram bullet through a space time crack and it hit me on the helmet saving my life hence we should all wear helmets - it's just as stupid as any of the other comments here, or just as useful as well to be honest.

Corner cases can be found to prove/disprove or reinforce or crumble just about anything.

In the real world of business for instance or insurance companies, they have to look at what is common or under the greater part of the curve and plan for that - capturing the bulk.
So to me, this initial comment, be it pro or con is less than useless.

As is the sarcasm and bitchiness in some of the other comments.

As for wearing a helmet, I have no idea if it's worthwhile or not, sorry.

Personally I know of two first hand experiences where a doctor (one a consultant) insists a helmet saved a life.
However, I have no first hand experiences where wearing a helmet has caused a death
Please note, I just have this information, it may or may not prove anything.

Jeff

 

[zacklaws]

A dangerous precedent to take and an unwelcome one,

Why! nobodies ever objected to it on safety issues and nobodies ever said to us "I'm not riding with you lot, your dangerous, you wear helmets", the fact is, it is not an "unwelcome" ruling except only in the mind of those that do not want to wear one in the first place for there own personal issues and that makes it fortunate for us as we then do not have to listen them bleating on about the pro's and con's of wearing helmets as they will not be with us.

How many people lock their bikes up and then spend all day wondering if it will still be there when they go back for it? Because the majority of locks are as much use as tits on a bull which is well known, but they still use them, they may protect their bike for a minute or two, or ten minutes or more against a determined thief with the equipment.

So how many people who are against helmets use locks, yet will argue against wearing helmets but not against the use of locks, or is it possibly something to do with the fact you wear a helmet and not a lock and it then becomes a personal issue? Any threads going on whether its worth locking your bike up or not as locks are useless?

Anyway, enough's enough, does anybody know where to buy "Mitchelin Tyre Levers" from, the yellow flat ones, I've been searching most of the day for some but cannot find any. Their that good, that I have become concerned that if I loose or break the one's I have now, I will not have a replacement.

 

[Ravenbait]

Sam

 

[Clandy]

Why! nobodies ever objected to it on safety issues and nobodies ever said to us "I'm not riding with you lot, your dangerous, you wear helmets", the fact is, it is not an "unwelcome" ruling except only in the mind of those that do not want to wear one in the first place for there own personal issues and that makes it fortunate for us as we then do not have to listen them bleating on about the pro's and con's of wearing helmets as they will not be with us.

<snip>

So how many people who are against helmets use locks, yet will argue against wearing helmets but not against the use of locks, or is it possibly something to do with the fact you wear a helmet and not a lock and it then becomes a personal issue? Any threads going on whether its worth locking your bike up or not as locks are useless?

By imposing a compulsory helmet rule your club is reinforcing the myth that cycling is somehow 'dangerous'. How does your club enforce this rule? Do they ban non-compliant cyclists from riding along the same route?

I will lock my bike because if I do not lock it it WILL be stolen. I do not wear a helmet because helmets are not proven to save lives, and it is my freedom of choice not to wear one.

 

[EdgEy]

Corner case scenarios are never helpful to anyone.
all it does is prolong needless debate and are often used by kiddies just to annoy the "other side".

I see it as a spectrum - and wearing a bicycle helmet, especially for people that go 30mph+ regularly, is really only a small distance from nothing at all, when you think about what could happen if you hit a pothole, for example.

By choosing to wear a bicycle type helmet you've already given up some of your safety on better offerings.
The trade off is more comfort and better peripheral vision, vs a full face.

You can use the same argument to forego wearing a helmet at all.
I'm just trying to show that it's not as black and white as some seem to make out.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Yes I have heard of such. I am not disputing that more head injuries occur whilst walking. I would like to know how the figures break down however. ie where the person was walking, was alcohol involved, were third parties involved.

From my own perspective I have been walking since the age of 3 and have never suffered head injury as a result of a fall. I have had a few bumps from tripping when running. However in the three years I have been cycling (as an adult) I have had numerous offs and have cracked several helmets. Pretty sure I would be flicking my bottom lip and drooling if not for the protection the helmet offered.

As for the use of stats, more Americans die in toilet related accidents than through shark attacks so on that basis you are safe to swim with sharks but not to use the loo!

In the forty five years I have been cycling I have had many more offs than someone who has only been riding for a few years and apart from cuts and bruises I have never suffered a head injury. They included some high speed racing crashes, low speed tumbles and collisions with cars.

Once again I would ask you to explain why the professional peloton suffered almost zero serious head injuries in 100+ years of racing without helmets, bearing in mind that the average pro crashes more times in a season than most of us do in a decade. That is a question the helmet evangelists always ignore completely whenever I have raised it. And the countless clubruns I have been on have seen some pretty hairy crashes with the same result.

 

[downfader]

Sam

I agree with the above posts. This is just getting silly.

Before i unsubscribe I will say this. You have a right to wear or ride how you wish as long as its within the law. What happens to other people through their own choice is none of your concern, and this is a rule pretty consistant in life.

Even if you choose to wear a helmet, use any safety device, even if you're compelled to do so by law... ALWAYS look into the reasons, analysis and stats that have lead to design, law or practice. Dont take someone off the webs' advice - they can sometimes be wrong, misguided or oversimplifying. It doesnt matter if they're a professional, professionals tend to have fields of expertise and for a professional to offer advice on something that is not their field is also a dangerous societal game to play.

Doctors and Nurses, and even the BMA, are not forensic analysts of impact data. They are obliged to offer a "bed side manner" to make us feel better in times of stress or pain.

Comparing cycle helmets to seatbelts is just so wrong it would ideally need its own thread. The Office of National Statistics saw a trend from seatbelt compulsion correlating to a spiked increase in pedestrian and cyclist KSIs. Seatbelts have been proven to have been ineffective in certain collision scenarios, also. For one internal organs have been lacerated, ribs broken, and secondly in side and diagonal impacts drivers and passeners have been known to come loose from the seatbelt and still sustain an injury. Its rare, but it has happened. A four point harness would have prevented the above.

Also comparing seatbelts to cycle helmets is just wrong for another reason - they are designed to restrict, not deal with direct impact. They have to be tested and retested at a variety of scenarios to be passed fit for use. Specially callibrated equipment is used to measure velocities, force and change of direction inside the car and crash test dummies. Slomo videos are also made to evaluate the seatbelt under this. SBs are tested and retested.

Cycle helmets have just not been tested to the same extent.

You may well have had a fall or been hit. I too have had one fall on the bike and been hit by a car. Yet I can withdraw from emotion to see that there are major problems with cycle helmets. Dont get emotional, be cold and logical. Look for facts and stop having a pop at others who have made a different choice, because a fact of life is this: people make different choices all the time.. religeon, politics, money - helmets are no different, respect their choice.

 

[4F]

Yawn , three helmet threads in the last three weeks and not a single Shimano V Campagnolo one.

Very upset from Suffolk

 

[snorri]

There have been a slight rise in cycling head injuries since the introduction of helmets, so how do you square that with your club rule? Presumably you all wear helmets in your cars, no? Please explain why not. You are sending out a message to all would be cyclists that riding a bike is dangerous, it is not and never has been.

This thread is in the general cycling forum and as such, I believe, refers to general cycling, not club runs and not off road, which are a whole different ball game.
In my experience cycling in close formation with other cyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, is considerably more dangerous than solo cycling. As for off road, falling off would appear to be an acceptable part of the fun, one contributor to this thread appears to have gone over the handlebars so often that he knows how he will fall. I wouldn't wish to comment on appropriate safety equipment for these activities.
My contributions to helmet threads are from my pov as a utility cyclist who would consider falling off to be a serious incident even if I did walk away unscathed.

 

[Sambot]

How do these threads tend to end up, do we get a truce or a declaration of war?

 

[dogfood]

Yawn , three helmet threads in the last three weeks and not a single Shimano V Campagnolo one.

What about sram v shimano v campag?

 

[TVC]

How do these threads tend to end up, do we get a truce or a declaration of war?

A stalemate until the next thread comes along and everyone starts again from the beginning.

I just treat it as a spectator sport to see who resorts to insults first.

 

[ufkacbln]

The College of emergency Medicine recognises the limitations of cycle helmets but strongly recommend there use.

They are the proffesional association that A an E doctors etc belong to. I emailed them about it a year or so ago and the above was the gist of the reply I had from them.

They also recommend the Thudguard....

So on that evidence should you support it's use ?

What always amuses me is the unequivocal "You must wear a cycle helmet because the experts recomend it" yet when the same experts recommend something like the Thudguard, we suddenly find the evidence can be questioned


Surely the same people giving the same decision should be treated with equal and unequivocal support?