This is a helmet debate

[ufkacbln]

must be frustrating for people keeping up with the thread to see long winded arguments being made to justify not wearing a helmet. why people cannot accept others views is beyond me

You really don't understand the concept of being informed do you?

 

[david k]

I get it, only need to hear it once, you've posted your views numerous times, I think I can safely say we've all heard what you've got to say. you've informed us with your wisdom, thanks for that.
I'm fully informed with your view, i'd be interested in hearing others

 

[Fab Foodie]

must be frustrating for people keeping up with the thread to see long winded arguments being made to justify not wearing a helmet. why people cannot accept others views is beyond me

Again, I don't think anybody's trying to justify not wearing a helmet. Just trying to demonstrate the on this 'safety issue' the evidence does not support that wearing a helmet confers any benefit. We accept that you have another view, but that it's not an evidence based one. That's OK. Relax.

I'd wager that 99% of helmet wearers are completrely unaware of the very small limitations of their helmet.
Being informed is useful in making decisions. Most people who choose to wear a helmet or advise others to do so, speak from a point of ignorance on the matter regarding the facts. Many will end-up with expectations regarding the preformance of their helmet that may be completely unrealistic.

All we're trying to do is put some meat on the bones of the debate, not dissuade.

It angers and frustrates me and others when the well-meaning lady from BRAKE is on the radio telling all cyclists should wear helmets for their own safety when there is no significant evidence to support her (though she quotes 1 out of many studies as undisputed fact). It angers us that she doesn't understand or mention all the other studies that do not support her position, or the meta-analysis that says that there is no safety case for helmet wearing, yet we hear calls from the AA, Brake and many other ill-informed organisations (often motorists backed) that we must wear helmets for our own safety, when there is no case for this. We have calls for compulsion, when there is no case for this. Pro cyclists must wear helmets when there is no case for this, insurance companies believe we should wear helmets when there is no case or this and also, not wearing a helmet is thought to be contributory negligendce if a car hits us and we're not wearing a helmet.

THE SAFETY DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WEARING A HELMET.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I get it, only need to hear it once, you've posted your views numerous times, I think I can safely say we've all heard what you've got to say. you've informed us with your wisdom, thanks for that.
I'm fully informed with your view, i'd be interested in hearing others

These boards are absolutely full of the pro-helmet, a helmet saved my life, I'd never go out without a helmet, I wear a helmet because it keeps my wife and family happy, I wear a helmet because I want my son to wear a helmet, because it's responsible behaviour, threads. If you wan't your decision supporting, you'll find many here.

This has been a good thread, I believe we've debunked why Pro's wear helmets and that they've had no impact on safety, in fact the crude evidence suggests the opposite. We've also debasted the efficacy of helmets and the pros and cons of wearing. We've discussed that the evidence doesn't support a safety argument for helmets.
Others have put their views, it's been informative.
Nobody (unless I missed it) has tried to dissuade anybody not to wear a helmet.

Maybe this thread needs closing-out, it's OK to agree to disagree

 

[david k]

fab foodie, good post, i get what your saying.

the issue for me is the bolshy defense, youve put it across very well.

Ive read the posts and tbh its no big surprise that a helmet has its limitations, i always new it did. Im surprised people thinks its capable of more. Im an x motorcycle rider, ive paid alot for motorbike helmets and i know their limitations and they are more robust than a cycle helmet. so i know and have always known that they are only helpful in low impacts, as it helped my son not too long ago. I defend that helmets do help they are of value. Just because they wont help if your hit by a bus doesnt mean they are not of any value at all. if people think it will stop any damage if they hit the road at 40mph then they are fools

for me this is all just obvious. i still maintain you have a better chance with than without, and ill continue to say so

 

[Jezston]

fab foodie, good post, i get what your saying.

the issue for me is the bolshy defense, youve put it across very well.

Ive read the posts and tbh its no big surprise that a helmet has its limitations, i always new it did. Im surprised people thinks its capable of more. Im an x motorcycle rider, ive paid alot for motorbike helmets and i know their limitations and they are more robust than a cycle helmet. so i know and have always known that they are only helpful in low impacts, as it helped my son not too long ago. I defend that helmets do help they are of value. Just because they wont help if your hit by a bus doesnt mean they are not of any value at all. if people think it will stop any damage if they hit the road at 40mph then they are fools

for me this is all just obvious. i still maintain you have a better chance with than without, and ill continue to say so

May I ask then why do you stop at helmets?

Why do you not advocate the use of full-face (a la downhill) helmets, elbow pads, knee pads, reinforced gloves and stronger protective clothing?

You have (as have many others) drawn the line at helmets. Why not go further?

 

[lukesdad]

I love my helmets, they actualy improve my looks.

 

[david k]

Yes of course you can ask my friend. Sorry for duplication for those who have read other posts but its based on likelyhood and potential severity. ie a basic risk assessment that we all do everyday, often without knowing it for everyday tasks like crossing a road.

People often try to discredit an opinion by using extremes, ie, dont wear a helmet unless you wear complete protective clothing suitable for cycling. Someone fell off a bike and broke their hip, the helmet didnt help etc. It can work both ways and I try to avoid it.

My view is a helmet is a worthwhile addition to my cycling attire, full body protection isn't, not for the style and speed of cycling i do. Therefore I do not wear any of that other than gloves fingerless in the summer. Others can make their own assessment of what they consider suitable equipment and attire for their rides.


David

 

[david k]

I love my helmets, they actualy improve my looks.

your wearing it wrong

 

[MacB]

Yes of course you can ask my friend. Sorry for duplication for those who have read other posts but its based on likelyhood and potential severity. ie a basic risk assessment that we all do everyday, often without knowing it for everyday tasks like crossing a road.

People often try to discredit an opinion by using extremes, ie, dont wear a helmet unless you wear complete protective clothing suitable for cycling. Someone fell off a bike and broke their hip, the helmet didnt help etc. It can work both ways and I try to avoid it.

My view is a helmet is a worthwhile addition to my cycling attire, full body protection isn't, not for the style and speed of cycling i do. Therefore I do not wear any of that other than gloves fingerless in the summer. Others can make their own assessment of what they consider suitable equipment and attire for their rides.


David

what, and you think the repeated, ad nauseum, use of anecdotal extremes is ok? How many people say 'I, or my loved one/friend, would be dead or crippled if it wasn't for a helmet'. I'd like to know exactly what evidence these statements are based on?

In fact I'd just like to see some evidence full stop.

 

[david k]

MacB, I think your mistaken my friend, let me help you. If you read on in the same paragraph it says "It can work both ways and I try to avoid it" on the subject of extremes



I dont need anything other than my own experiences to form my decision, I dont feel compelled to look through lots of conflicting evidence or reports, I simply put a helmet on. If you need evidence before making a decision for yourself then I suggest you do your own research, I wont be doing it for you. If you dont want to wear a helmet thats fine, dont worry, just dont wear one, simples

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm fully informed with your view, i'd be interested in hearing others

No evidence of that so far!

MacB, I think your mistaken my friend, let me help you. If you read on in the same paragraph it says "It can work both ways and I try to avoid it" on the subject of extremes



I dont need anything other than my own experiences to form my decision, I dont feel compelled to look through lots of conflicting evidence or reports, I simply put a helmet on. If you need evidence before making a decision for yourself then I suggest you do your own research, I wont be doing it for you. If you dont want to wear a helmet thats fine, dont worry, just dont wear one, simples

Accept that David K is totally ignorant of the facts and has declared clearly that evidence, information, or truth have no place in the helmet debate. His position is simple - he is right, all the experts are wrong and he is not going to be convinced to apply any reason or comon sense to his position.

 

[Red Light]

stationary bike? it has been posted here they are designed up to 12/14mph. not a stationary bike?

They are designed for an ≤90J impact which is what you get if you fall from a stationary bike (12.5mph is the vertical speed your head will achieve in that drop). Its also what the testing is; a vertical fall with no forward velocity. Any idea that they are designed for more than that is falsified by the design parameters and the testing.

In addition it assumes there is no involvement of your body in the fall. If you involve your body momentum as well the protection is against a fall of a few inches and speeds of <1mph.

Nobody has suggested they are anything but what they are designed for.

So do you agree they are for nothing other than a fall from a stationary bike which is what they are designed for and which they are tested against?

Its hard to believe that this thread has become those who suggest a helmet is not a safety precaution but a profit only enterprise and those who prefer wearing helmets to not wearing them!

Given that the best studies have found there is no safety benefit its difficult to see how they can be a safety precaution.

You can continue to try to pursuade me not to wear one but it wont work, im still wearing one regardless of what you think

You are free to wear one if you wish - you have that right and no-one is trying to take it away from you. Just trying to stop you proselytising them.

Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who want to stop me not wearing one. And not only do they want to take away my freedom of choice, the process of them doing so is proven to reduce the number of people cycling which is bad for cycling and bad for my cycling safety.

 

[Red Light]

Damn, dropped into this topic again to see if any conclusions had been made about pros wearing helmets and as usual it has wandered off topic.....again.

Yes, it has. Post Casartelli's death in the 1995 TdeF when helmets really started to gain a foothold in professional racing leading to their mandation by UCI in 2003, the death rate of professional cyclists in competition has tripled. Make of that what you will.

 

[Red Light]

I dont need anything other than my own experiences to form my decision, I dont feel compelled to look through lots of conflicting evidence or reports,

So you believe the earth is flat, the sun goes round the earth too? Pesky fellows, Copernicus and Pythagoras, making people believe otherwise when the evidence is clearly there to see with your own eyes that they are wrong!