The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[shouldbeinbed]

Not much of a debate, is it?
I think people with my views (and I know many people share my views) know what they are going to get when the come into a thread like this, which is a shame.

What have you got that you think is shameful in terms of this thread that has put others off from posting agreement or supporting your posts?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not much of a debate, is it?
I think people with my views (and I know many people share my views) know what they are going to get when the come into a thread like this, which is a shame.

I think it is not much of a debate, like most threads on the topic are not much of a debate, because the pro-helmet party says
"Helmets are great, why don't folk wear 'em?"
to which the skeptics say "Why do you assert they are great then?"
and in reply are told "Here is my, or my mate's, anecdata"
and quite righty get told "That anecdata doesn't cut it, here is real data which proves... well... not very much at all about the effectiveness of helmets"

So yeah, it isn't much of a debate because there isn't really a debate to be had if you look at the data.

Your view appears to be that, for road cyclists, helmets make a difference in certain circumstance e.g. high speed cycling crashes on the road. I've asked "how much of a difference?" & "precisely what circumstances?"

I'm still waiting on an answer. An answer, which, if given definitively, would enable me to make a better informed choice about wearing a helmet or not. But most times the answer given will distil down to some or other variant of the unthinking "Well it's obvious innit?" which, I'm afraid, leaves the mustard startlingly uncut.

 

[Profpointy]

at the risk of stirring things up, but as we are (still) being fairly civilised, I do wonder if a neat hard shell helmet might actually be helpfull. You'd certainly not have the cracking / breaking / didn't absorb energy problem (if you bashed it hard enough to break you'd likely be f*^$/^d anyway) - and these sort of helmets aren't as big so the " bigger target" issue wouldn't be as severe. I suspect they'd slide more easily, as opposed to snagging, so reducing one of the other risk factors.

That said, this sort of helmet (caving/climbing) is perhaps more for protection from falling rocks than general impact so may or may ot be as shock absorbing. This is what I used to wear before I became sceptical alltogether.

Thoughts?

 

[Profpointy]

You'd have to find some convincing evidence from testing studies that would even begin to persuade me to ruin my experience of cycling by wearing one though. I was looking at a motorcycle helmet just the other day in a queue of traffic, and thinking how hideous it would be to have one's head enclosed like that on a bicycle.

I can confirm that a motorcyle helmet, and leathers etc is indeed hideous ti wear in traffic ona hot day (on a motorcycle) - doubly so in Germany this summer in 42 centigrade !

That said, a caving helmet is pretty light and I didn't especially find it uncomfortable cycling, nor when dangling on a rope fixing my drainpipes for that matter.

For the avoidance of doubt I've jot done a u-turn, just wondering if a good and worthwhile helmet might exist - though self-evidently the band of doctors suggesting full face cycling helmets are just being moronic and clearly don't cycle

 

[Mugshot]

though self-evidently the band of doctors suggesting full face cycling helmets are just being moronic and clearly don't cycle

They may well not, but if you're going to wear one "just in case" doesn't something which offers additional protection for face and teeth make more sense?

 

[Profpointy]

They may well not, but if you're going to wear one "just in case" doesn't something which offers additional protection for face and teeth make more sense?

that's not the moronic bit. Practicality of full face helmet whilst huffing & puffing cylcing is the problem. Wearing motorcycle leathers would probably eliminate gravel rash in cycling accidents, but hardly practical

 

[SavageHoutkop]

an excellent example of how people can assume "it's for sold as safety device so it must work as one".

As for rear facing baby seats.... isn't the cute gurgling baby facing them a bit of a distraction for the doting parent in the driver's seat?

No, as I always put it on the rear seats. You can't put it in the front unless you're sure there's no airbag; and while some cars permit you to 'disable' the front airbag I don't trust it.

 

[Mugshot]

that's not the moronic bit. Practicality of full face helmet whilst huffing & puffing cylcing is the problem. Wearing motorcycle leathers would probably eliminate gravel rash in cycling accidents, but hardly practical

I'm not suggesting that they're a good idea, what I'm saying is that if you're going to wear one it seems to me that you might as well wear one that protects your face too. I believe that @w00hoo_kent wears a full face helmet, he's been involved in these discussions previously, however I apologise if he doesn't want to be pulled into another one after me tagging him.

 

[Mugshot]

All of which dodges the main issue that the risk is tiny, and cycling isn't all that dangerous.

I don't think that issue of risk is being dodged, I think @Profpointy is just expanding the discussion a little.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

at the risk of stirring things up, but as we are (still) being fairly civilised, I do wonder if a neat hard shell helmet might actually be helpfull. You'd certainly not have the cracking / breaking / didn't absorb energy problem (if you bashed it hard enough to break you'd likely be f*^$/^d anyway) - and these sort of helmets aren't as big so the " bigger target" issue wouldn't be as severe. I suspect they'd slide more easily, as opposed to snagging, so reducing one of the other risk factors.

That said, this sort of helmet (caving/climbing) is perhaps more for protection from falling rocks than general impact so may or may ot be as shock absorbing. This is what I used to wear before I became sceptical alltogether.

Thoughts?

I've got a Bern pish-pot style helmet I bought to learn to longboard in. I wear it every time I go longboarding. I smack it hard into the tarmac every time I go longboarding, sometimes several times in a session. I am cr@p at long boarding. Sometimes I've been black and blue from hip to knee the day afterwards. Longboarding finally convinced me that cycle helmets are utterly superfluous on the road for the sort of riding I do on the road.

Amongst the tiny % of helmeted riders in cph such skate style helmets are quite popular, along with the ones disguised as hats. Riding a sit up and beg three speed in the latest top end road race helmet really does look very very stupid.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

cue "so does eating through a straw" style comments

 

[Profpointy]

No, as I always put it on the rear seats. You can't put it in the front unless you're sure there's no airbag; and while some cars permit you to 'disable' the front airbag I don't trust it.

and if you put a rear facing baby seat in the front, you'd need arms like a gibbon to reach the steering wheel...


.....I'm here all week folks

 

[benb]

So yeah, the risk thing. I've posted similar to this before but.

-Cycling is already pretty low risk of any sort of serious injury (IIRC, something like 500 per billion km)
-Ergo, the risk of a head injury of any sort is even lower
-Of those, the subset where a helmet could prevent a death or serious injury is smaller still
-That's why we cannot detect any protective effect in the data - the specific circumstances where a helmet could help is so vanishingly remote that it is undetectable.
-And once again, there are plenty of activities with a broadly similar risk of head injury that we do not bother with a helmet for - because, like cycling, the risk is so low as to not be worth the bother

I do get somewhat peeved with the "But if it saves just one life brigade", it's such a moronic argument. Luckily there aren't very many of those on here.

 

[Dan B]

All of which dodges the main issue that the risk is tiny, and cycling isn't all that dangerous.

I don't think that issue of risk is being dodged, I think @Profpointy is just expanding the discussion a little.

Irregular verbs #464:

I expand the conversation
You raise connected issues
He drags the thread off down a side-alley and beats it to death with its own severed head

 

[Profpointy]

Whilst thii may be anecdote, I do know quite a few folk who've been seriously injured or killed cycling Two of the habitually seriously injured were close work colleagues, though clearly rode like idiots (off road) - and tended to injure themselves.doing other thing as well. Even the sensible people havn't come through unscathed. I'd go as far to say that cycling is associated with more accidental injuries than anything else I can think of amongst people I know. I'm not in a cycling club, nor cycle much these days, so "cyclists" are not necessarily disproportionately represented amongst people I know - other than nearly everone riding a bike a bit. So I'm not sure I believe the risk is all that low.

That's not to say helmets help, and the helmetted are well represented amongs the injured in any case