The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

No you are wrong, they weren't cyclists so hadn't given any consideration to wearing a cycling helmet at all, why would they? I didn't ask them to go away and think long and hard about cycle helmets and come back with a considered response, just a quick instant response.

OK, misread your post slightly... but i reckon a lot of folk who wear a cycle helmet do so because they're widely available and presume them to be necessary these days. Other than observing the 'kit' and following suit, they don't really think about it.

 

[mjr]

How? Can't say it has any effect whatsoever on how nice a time I have when cycling.

Well no, not for you, but you haven't suffered a neck injury from one, the extra weight and size doesn't upset you, you've not had a problem from the wind noise or overheating or draughtiness, you're used to motorists driving closer to you and you actually seem to think you look good as a Toad/Kinopio tribute act. For other people, who don't cycle as much, there's a risk of any, some or all of those feeling unpleasant to them.

 

[Profpointy]

one reason for us to be ultra vigilant on compulsion, and by "us" I don't just mean the sceptics, is that many non-cylists think, and even assert, that cyclists should have to have compulsory insurance, cycling tests as a (false) equivalence with driving
and by the same "logic" we should have to wear helmets because they have to wear seatbelts. Of course as an argument this makes no sense whatsoever, yet I have heard it stated quite regularly, and non-cyclists often swallow it.

 

[Justinslow]

one reason for us to be ultra vigilant on compulsion, and by "us" I don't just mean the sceptics, is that many non-cylists think, and even assert, that cyclists should have to have compulsory insurance, cycling tests as a (false) equivalence with driving
and by the same "logic" we should have to wear helmets because they have to wear seatbelts. Of course as an argument this makes no sense whatsoever, yet I have heard it stated quite regularly, and non-cyclists often swallow it.

Some of that wouldn't be a bad idea, I know lots of cyclists with insurance.....
Indeed my mate who fell off and hit his helmeted head and face on the ground on Friday was in collision with a "numpty cyclist" on his side of a cycle path with ear phones on (he got away with no damage).

 

[david k]

one reason for us to be ultra vigilant on compulsion, and by "us" I don't just mean the sceptics, is that many non-cylists think, and even assert, that cyclists should have to have compulsory insurance, cycling tests as a (false) equivalence with driving
and by the same "logic" we should have to wear helmets because they have to wear seatbelts. Of course as an argument this makes no sense whatsoever, yet I have heard it stated quite regularly, and non-cyclists often swallow it.

I have spoken with and witnessed many drivers get annoyed at cyclists for riding as they see it in a road position that makes it awkward for the driver, for not having road tax, for not being insured. This is very ignorant and I believe there needs to be a big drive (pardon the pun) to educate drivers and the wider public in cyclists and decisions they make based on safety.
Surely now with the large increase in rider numbers and success of our Olympians the current awareness has increased and a media campaign to advise, inform and increase safety would get most traction now than ever before in my memory.
That said I don't believe car drivers believe we must wear helmets because they have to wear seat belts, when someone shouts out of a car it's almost always road tax comments and never helmets. I don't believe suggesting this "logic" is helpful or accurate. We shouldn't extrapolate a logic and then engage in a hypothetical argument.
There's enough to debate without looking for more to argue about

 

[doog]

The campaign also seems to be targeted at the fear factor.

A bit like drink drive ,seat belt and all the other campaigns..you know..the 'what might happen factor'.

 

[david k]

A bit like drink drive ,seat belt and all the other campaigns..you know..the 'what might happen factor'.

Yes the fear factor is often used in campaigns, I often find it a bit distasteful but it is very affective, I assume that's why it's used

 

[Profpointy]

I have spoken with and witnessed many drivers get annoyed at cyclists for riding as they see it in a road position that makes it awkward for the driver, for not having road tax, for not being insured. This is very ignorant and I believe there needs to be a big drive (pardon the pun) to educate drivers and the wider public in cyclists and decisions they make based on safety.
Surely now with the large increase in rider numbers and success of our Olympians the current awareness has increased and a media campaign to advise, inform and increase safety would get most traction now than ever before in my memory.
That said I don't believe car drivers believe we must wear helmets because they have to wear seat belts, when someone shouts out of a car it's almost always road tax comments and never helmets. I don't believe suggesting this "logic" is helpful or accurate. We shouldn't extrapolate a logic and then engage in a hypothetical argument.
There's enough to debate without looking for more to argue about

Not arguing with the thrust of your post, nor with anyone here really, but I genuinely have heard "you should wear helmets, after all we have to wear sealbelts" often with a "get over it" added. I wasn't (I don't think) falling for the "slippery slope" fallacy, but just commenting on the nonsense we can be up against.

 

[doog]

The only head injury i've sustained as an adult was whilst drinking. I'm certain if i was wearing a helmet i wouldn't have a little scar on my forehead.

Drunks,fighting drunks and more importantly the elderly are the majority of pedestrian head injuries. To use the rest (the vast majority ) of the pedestrian population as a comparison (as some are doing on here ) and suggest they wear helmets is plain daft but it gets reeled out again and again.....................and again.

 

[Profpointy]

Drunks,fighting drunks and more importantly the elderly are the majority of pedestrian head injuries. To use the rest (the vast majority ) of the pedestrian population as a comparison (as some are doing on here ) and suggest they wear helmets is plain daft but it gets reeled out again and again.....................and again.

why is it daft, seriously ?

Some cycling is safer than others likewise some pedestrianing so it isn't beyond plausibility that both sets of data are slewed by a high-risk sub group. And in both cases the efficacy of helmets is unproven.

I'm not advocating pedestrian helmets, even beer drinking helmets, but it is absolutely right and proper to compare risk and benefit across activities

 

[mjr]

Indeed my mate who fell off and hit his helmeted head and face on the ground on Friday was in collision with a "numpty cyclist" on his side of a cycle path with ear phones on (he got away with no damage).

So clearly, based on that anecdote, it's better to wear earphones than a helmet, isn't it?

Edit: and I have actually seen this happen. In that case, the helmet user saw the numpty coming but still refused to yield their "correct" side or slow or even sound a bell or shout. Neither suffered damage in that collision. It was a dead straight cycle track, with very wide verges. Yes, the numpty was in the wrong to start with, cycling on the right, but I'm sorry to say that I feel both were partly to blame for just keeping on pedalling into a completely avoidable collision.

That said I don't believe car drivers believe we must wear helmets because they have to wear seat belts, when someone shouts out of a car it's almost always road tax comments and never helmets.

I thought you wore a helmet? So the gobby nobby is unlikely to shout the "wear a helmet" BS at you.

Surely now with the large increase in rider numbers and success of our Olympians the current awareness has increased and a media campaign to advise, inform and increase safety would get most traction now than ever before in my memory.

Have we heard anything more than tumbleweed about the more basic need for a fair share of the transport budget? https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/letter-to-theresa-may-from-olympic-cyclists.206426/ ... and pardon my French, but a media campaign can go fornicate itself. What we need more is policing, loophole-closing and rebuilding the most dangerous junctions and roads.

 

[doog]

I'm not advocating pedestrian helmets, even beer drinking helmets, but it is absolutely right and proper to compare risk and benefit across activities

I agree however unless these pedestrian head Injuries are properly categorised instead of simply used as a carte blanche comparison between cycling and walking then it simply isn't a proper statistical comparison.

 

[david k]

So clearly, based on that anecdote, it's better to wear earphones than a helmet, isn't it?
I thought you wore a helmet? So the gobby nobby is unlikely to shout the "wear a helmet" BS at you.
Have we heard anything more than tumbleweed about the more basic need for a fair share of the transport budget? https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/letter-to-theresa-may-from-olympic-cyclists.206426/ ... and pardon my French, but a media campaign can go fornicate itself. What we need more is policing, loophole-closing and rebuilding the most dangerous junctions and roads.

it doesn't have to be one or the other? A media campaign would not stop other aspects of improving safety?

 

[mjr]

I agree however unless these pedestrian head Injuries are properly categorised instead of simply used as a carte blanche comparison between cycling and walking then it simply isn't a proper statistical comparison.

Why not? The cycling head injuries aren't properly categorised either - racing gets lumped in with the old maid pootling to the corner shop.

 

[mjr]

it doesn't have to be one or the other? A media campaign would not stop other aspects of improving safety?

It would reduce them, as the budget is unlikely to be bottomless. It's a balancing act and another Nice Way Code should absolutely not be the top spending priority.