Wiggins is now pro-compulsion it seems .... Nobber.

[Arrowfoot]

And if you are suggesting that it's worthwhile wearing a helmet just to prevent a cut or a scrape, then you ought to wear one at all times, to be consistent.

Thats a really an intelligent point. You are the first to point that out. We had a parent in the school board that used to come out with such insightful points and he was pretty famous for it.

 

[Milkfloat]

If you don't wish to read alternatives to the standard "stands to reason they must work, my mate fell off and the ambulance driver told him that he would definitely have died had he not been wearing a helmet when he landed on his elbow", perhaps you should avoid anything in this section.
In the meantime, rest assured, no one has ever thought of passing legislation to prevent you from wearing a helmet.

I have read a lot of the evidence (thanks for those posting the links). The evidence really can draw no conclusion either way. What it can tell us is that at a minimum any covering will help alleviate minor bumps and scrapes at a minimum, perhaps at the cost of potential rotational injury if the helmet is too large. Perhaps we should all be riding round in something like this.

 

[psmiffy]

no evidence that either having it or not having it makes the situation better.

Having read quite a lot of the “Evidence” it would seem it is not so much a score draw as a hung parliament - some for - some against - and some for with other agendas – the latter coalition would seem to take it on the basis that on a population basis the stats rule against there being any direct benefit to wearing a helmet in an accident serious enough to present the subject to a hospital - however, there is a significant body of first hand anecdotal evidence that indicate that on an individual basis that a helmet can be beneficial and that it is often not necessary for an individual to present themselves at a hospital following head to hard object interactions.

 

[screenman]

More accurately, perhaps we should all be wearing one of those at all times, whatever we are doing.

Should we not have a choice?

 

[srw]

Having read quite a lot of the “Evidence” it would seem it is not so much a score draw as a hung parliament - some for - some against - and some for with other agendas – the latter coalition would seem to take it on the basis that on a population basis the stats rule against there being any direct benefit to wearing a helmet in an accident serious enough to present the subject to a hospital - however, there is a significant body of first hand anecdotal evidence that indicate that on an individual basis that a helmet can be beneficial and that it is often not necessary for an individual to present themselves at a hospital following head to hard object interactions.

Yes, that's fair - although I'd suggest that the first-hand and anecdotal evidence is, on inspection, nowhere near as conclusive as it may seem.

 

[psmiffy]

Yes, that's fair - although I'd suggest that the first-hand and anecdotal evidence is, on inspection, nowhere near as conclusive as it may seem

I would suggest that to the participant the outcome would seem to have been very "conclusive"

 

[Licramite]

If your going to wear that you might as well wear a cycle helmet.
I think the cycle helmet will protect you a bit more.
Don't know what the who ha is about - you have to wear a helmet on a building site(even working on the roof) on a motorbike, no one beefs about that.(actually bikers do)-
On the other hand you don't have to wear a helmet rock climbing,hand gliding, potholing - probably a very good idea, but theres no law about it.
I don't see compulsion as doing the slightest good. education and heavy penalties for vehicle users who squish cyclists may work better.

Just generally observing I have noticed a distinct trend
people who wear the gear - Lycra or cycle shorts and tops - tend to wear helmets.
people who wear ordinary cloths they live and work in, don't.
now this could just be an attitude about what they are doing, some are Commuting or cycling for exercise and some are just using the bike to get from a-b and not travelling very far.

In both cases they are equally vulnerable
I have persuaded my father in law to wear a helmet, he's 80 and never worn one but he gouged a bit out of his head on the garage door and it took months to heal - so a bit of head protection seamed a good idea, - I Iknow your going to say well he should wear it all the time and you would be right - but cycling is a situation were your more likely to fall and bang your head than walking (actually thats debatable) but it seemed a sensible precaution.
ItHe is right in that peoole should won't save him from a 60ton artic-lorry but then what would.

I don't believe people cycle more dangerously and take bigger risks because their wearing a helmet, - it might be peope who dress and pretend to be professional cyclists take bigger risks, but thats more an attitude to cycling than helmet wearing.

I agree in part with Wiggins - he said he saw helmet compulsion as likely in the future and with our nanny state he's probably right - thats got nothing to do with the effectiveness of helmets or not - thats again perception which is driven by the media and our nanny/weak politicians.

He is right in that cyclists should be responsible for their own safety, as we all should. That includes wearing high vis at night, lights on bikes, ect
You would be pretty outraged if a car driver drove a black car with no lights on at night - so why are cyclists different.
you would be pissed off if a car driver pulled up on your left at a junction sqeezing in an creating an extra lane - just because you can - doesn't mean you should.
helmets are a tiny part of what he was saying.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

...won't save him from a 60ton artic-lorry but then what would.

A 60 ton artic lorry driver?

 

[ianrauk]

wearing high vis at night

You do know that Hi-Vis is not very effective at night right? Looking like the same washed out colour as any normal clothes under sodium street lights
If you had said reflectives I would have taken your post a little bit more seriously.

And it's quite weird as on all my night riding, which over a year is a heck of a lot, I have seen many hundred of black cars at night and seem to see them all ok. With or without lights.


*Lycra wearing non helmet wearer*

 

[Dan B]

You persuaded your father to wear a cycling helmet whenever he opens the garage door?

 

[Licramite]

You do know that Hi-Vis is not very effective at night right? Looking like the same washed out colour as any normal clothes under sodium street lights
If you had said reflectives I would have taken your post a little bit more seriously.

And it's quite weird as on all my night riding, which over a year is a heck of a lot, I have seen many hundred of black cars at night and seem to see them all ok. With or without lights.


*Lycra wearing non helmet wearer*

Ok reflectives, - Hi-vis I don't mean absolutely, - something that will be seen at night.
Well I'm assuming there was some form of lights (from you I assume) and cars are generally nice and shiny.
Cyclists aren't - my point being ninjas are asking for it. woulld you expect to see a car driving at night without its lights on. - if you did what would you think
cyclists (and motorbikes) should consider would they do what their doing in their car? - cutting in at stops on the left or right sometimes of stationary cars, ignoring red lights, pedestrian crossings.
(I don't mean you personnally)

Intersting about lycra non helmet wearer - I do wonder if helmet wearing is far more a style thing than a safety thing ,
people like to look right, so if your wearing all the gear, not wearing a helmet is going against "the look" if your wearing wellies,overcoat on a bike with a basket on the front, wearing a helmet might look odd. -

 

[Licramite]

You persuaded your father to wear a cycling helmet whenever he opens the garage door?

He should he's always banging his head.

 

[Mugshot]

I have persuaded my father in law to wear a helmet, he's 80 and never worn one but he gouged a bit out of his head on the garage door and it took months to heal - so a bit of head protection seamed a good idea, - I Iknow your going to say well he should wear it all the time and you would be right - but cycling is a situation were your more likely to fall and bang your head than walking (actually thats debatable) but it seemed a sensible precaution.
ItHe is right in that peoole should won't save him from a 60ton artic-lorry but then what would.

So, you've persuaded nagged your father in law into wearing a helmet because he banged his head when he wasn't (I assume) riding a bike, despite the fact that he's managed to reach the grand old age of 80 and never worn a helmet, so has managed not to die whilst not wearing one for quite a long time. Then you let us know that it is debatable that one is more likely to bang your head cycling than walking, particularly it could be suggested for an 80 year old, I'm guessing however that you're not suggesting that anyone, even your 80 year old father in law, should wear a helmet whilst walking, even though as you say yourself it would be a good idea for your father in law.
Can you not read what you're typing?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Black cars at night with no other than natural light (not much of that at night in the fin rain) without their lights on - at what distance did you see them? and cars are much bigger than cyclists.

People just abandon them by the side of the road. Often when they go inside to watch tele, eat or sleep.

 

[Licramite]

Sorry but your anecdote doesn't stand up - all the non-helmet-wearers I cycle with are in cycling clubs and wear lycra. Same as me. See? Meaningless isn't it.

I didn't mean everybody all the time I was talking as a trend - of course every consideration can be refuted by "Well I don't" but thats taking the pedants way not holistic way.
It's just an observation , - and meaningless - isn't everything.