This is a helmet debate

[numbnuts]

if it's good enough for the Pros it's good enough for me

 

[Mad at urage]

As i say, not judging like for like

A racing driver drives a car that is built for speed, on tracks often built for that purpose and in a dangerous manner. Car racing is well known for its dangers. Public driving however if rarely in similar cars, never on race tracks, often on a and b roads at low speed and therefore not the same.

Incomplete analysis. There are motor races for all sorts of cars (saloons, customised, right down to standard cars 'as sold' - and a bit tuned up, as any decent garage could do). In some parts of the world they race on the streets. All of the professional bodies involved in these races insist on helmets.

A pro cycler will use a professional bike and at the top of his game travel at speed. He rarely travells on a road with other vehicle users as they are either on a track or on roads that have been shut down for the purpose of the race. A casual cyclist can use similar bikes, can travel at similar speeds (albeit not for the same length of time) and travel on roads with other road users.

Therefore the casual cyclist is wearing the same helmet outwith its design remit.

A car crashing at 100+mph is likely to cause alot of damage. this is more likely to happen to a race driver than causal car user.

A car crashing at 30 - 70mph is likely to cause a lot of damage - even to the casual car user driving it

A cyclist can come of their bike at speed, a pro or casual cyclist oing down hill. A casual cyclist is more likely than its pro counterpart to be hit by a vehicle, which I presume is just if not more dangerous than just falling off.

Indeed and is not what cycle helmets are designed to protect against, so why expect them to do so?

And therefore, you are not judging like for like, I presumed you would see this for yourselves but I have had to write it down for you. I am happy to accept your views but not arguments that have no basis

Pot / kettle ?

 

[david k]

incomplete analysis, maybe not, a race is by its mere nature more risky than a general car user. If you can honestly say driving a car on a public road has the same risks as driving a car in a race then there is little point you continuing to try to understand my views.

 

[david k]

it also proves you havn't read my posts, i have never said that helmets are the be all and end all or told people they must wear them. i simply said i prefer to wear them and gave my points. It is also a valid point that pros have it enforced upon them.
it is others who are trying to prove me wrong. I have the same view as before, i prefer to wear a helmet than not, i feel better with it on, i fancy my chances more with than without. if you dont feel the same way fine, dont wear a helmet.

 

[Red Light]

As i say, not judging like for like

A racing driver drives a car that is built for speed, on tracks often built for that purpose and in a dangerous manner. Car racing is well known for its dangers. Public driving however if rarely in similar cars, never on race tracks, often on a and b roads at low speed and therefore not the same.

"Cycle helmets are primarily designed for falls without any other vehicle involved. In many legal cases I have studied where a cyclist was in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy potentials were of a level that outstripped those that we use to certify Grand Prix motor racing helmets. "

- Brian Walker, CEO of Head Protection Evaluations Ltd - the main UK helmet test house.

 

[Red Light]

incomplete analysis, maybe not, a race is by its mere nature more risky than a general car user. If you can honestly say driving a car on a public road has the same risks as driving a car in a race then there is little point you continuing to try to understand my views.

Whether it is or not, driving a car on public roads is the biggest source of serious head injuries in the UK.

 

[summerdays]

A pro cycler will use a professional bike and at the top of his game travel at speed. He rarely travells on a road with other vehicle users as they are either on a track or on roads that have been shut down for the purpose of the race. A casual cyclist can use similar bikes, can travel at similar speeds (albeit not for the same length of time) and travel on roads with other road users.

I don't agree with that ... ok racing pro's are likely to be on a closed road - however they don't get to be good by simply riding in a few races ... they clock up thousands of miles on the road in training, plus they are likely to choose those faster A roads that some of us may avoid. And if you think you are travelling at similar speeds think again!

 

[david k]

I don't agree with that ... ok racing pro's are likely to be on a closed road - however they don't get to be good by simply riding in a few races ... they clock up thousands of miles on the road in training, plus they are likely to choose those faster A roads that some of us may avoid. And if you think you are travelling at similar speeds think again!

i have sene quotes on here from people saying they reached up 40/50mph on downhills, i presume pro cyclist cycle at those speeds, so the amateur cyclist can reach speeds the same as a pro cyclist, maybe not for the same time period. that was my point

 

[Paco de Bango]

rally car drivers drive on roads and they wear helmets.

'casual' road cars are capable of travelling at pretty much the same speed as rally cars.

it's exactly the same principle not matter how sarcastic you get.

Also, cycles count as other vehicles so the risk of getting hit by another vehicle is not more likely for a casual cyclist, it's more likely for the racing cyclist as they will be deliberately riding as close as possible to other vehicles in the race.

 

[david k]

rally car drivers drive on roads and they wear helmets.

'casual' road cars are capable of travelling at pretty much the same speed as rally cars.

it's exactly the same principle not matter how sarcastic you get.

Also, cycles count as other vehicles so the risk of getting hit by another vehicle is not more likely for a casual cyclist, it's more likely for the racing cyclist as they will be deliberately riding as close as possible to other vehicles in the race.

So you feel that driving a car in a race is the same risk as general motoring. Well we will have to disagree

I really dont know why you and others wont accept i have a different view. People appear to be getting worked up that somebody else may have a different opinion to them.

I am able to express my opinion and thoughts without getting uptight about somebody elses views, thats your or their right. It does not in any way change my view, as the points you and others have made do not convince me not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing one

 

[MacB]

i have sene quotes on here from people saying they reached up 40/50mph on downhills, i presume pro cyclist cycle at those speeds, so the amateur cyclist can reach speeds the same as a pro cyclist, maybe not for the same time period. that was my point

but that's not really a point about helmets, coz if you're doing that sort of speed then the helemt isn't going to help.

You started this thread asking why pros wore helmets, many of us believe it's purely to do with insurance and marketing/sponsorship...you don't seem to like that as an answer. It's been pointed out that the stats available indicate no noticeable change in injuries before and after the introduction of helmets.

On this, and the other, thread you seem unable to accept that plenty of us, whether we wear a lid or not, are very anti compulsion and pro-helmet style propoganda. We are not, and I repeat, WE ARE NOT ANTI HELMET, we are quite happy for you to wear whatever you like and would never tell you not to wear something. On the other hand we are concerned with the sort of information bandied around as 'fact' and the, scientifically lazy, assumption that a helmet can only help and will help, to at least some degree, in any fall/crash.

We don't run around saying 'oh my God look at him he's wearing a helemt what an idiot' or things of that nature. Whereas the helmet evangelicals feel quite happy to do the opposite and apply all sorts of emotive claptrap to the debate.

Try and remember that your common sense, gut instinct, approach is only that, it is not evidence, it is not hard fact and it is certainly not an opinion held by everyone.

 

[sunnyjim]

This is what the UCI said on the matter:

They haven't explicitly stated the reason but implicitly state it's for safety reasons.

Make of it what you will.

I trust the UCI have a detailed definition of what a 'Helmet' is, to prevent people turning up with non-standard but faster hats & unfair millinery.

 

[david k]

MacB, you seem to be having a go at me because you are fed up with people getting shirty over those who do not wear helmets. Thats unfair as that is not me and i should not have to defend myself because you are angry at others

i have not based my points on fact other than my OP. All other points on both threads have refered to my feelings, and have been proposed as such. So you dont need to warn me of stating opinion as fact. FYI i feel the same way when people turn their own opinions into fact, when asked they say "well everyone knows it". To me that isnt a justified argument

i still prefer to wear and use a helmet

 

[Dayvo]

if it's good enough for the Pros it's good enough for me

Do you shave your legs, too, numbnuts?

 

[summerdays]

i have sene quotes on here from people saying they reached up 40/50mph on downhills, i presume pro cyclist cycle at those speeds, so the amateur cyclist can reach speeds the same as a pro cyclist, maybe not for the same time period. that was my point

I've done 40 mph once (or maybe twice on steep downhill) - but I know that a pro could go faster than me .. I once asked someone I know who used raced professionally and I can't remember what his top speed was but it was fast - a lot faster than my fastest speed.