Charity Events and Helmets

[Poacher]

Maybe you should read the OP again; @morrisman is already following your advice and not entering the event. He won't be alone in that!
What he's objecting to isn't that the organisers are setting rules - they're perfectly entitled to do that - but the fact that they're lying about the content of the Highway Code. Another example of creeping compulsion.

 

[Profpointy]

Yebut, given the lack of evidence to support helmet wearing, being forced / encouraged to wear one is essentially a political act - and for a so called charitiy, or a school say, to enforce a political view of the world is dubious - base on "my ball, my rules"

 

[screenman]

What gets me is that no one cares whether they are effective or not.

I would think it would be hard to argue that in some circumstances they would not help protect a skull from some damage. In which case I care.

 

[e-rider]

I have a friend who wants me to ride a sportive with him later this year. In order to avoid the helmet compulsion I am planning to not register and spend my fee on beer at the end.

I have ridden one sportive 'black' (I was unemployed and skint) - I enjoyed it just as much as the ones I paid for though! Go for it.

 

[Profpointy]

I would think it would be hard to argue that in some circumstances they would not help protect a skull from some damage. In which case I care.

You've rather missed the point - overall they appear to make little difference (see Australia or Ontario experience, or the Dutch blokes paper etc etc). So accepting what you say is true - ie they sometimes help - then presumably they make things worse in other ways - otherwise they would help overall - which strangely, they appear not to

 

[benb]

The Highway Code requires cyclists to wear a correctly fitted cycle helmet.

Then they need to re-read it, because it doesn't say that. It suggests it, but it can only require things that are backed up in law (hence the HC wording of SHOULD vs MUST)

 

[benb]

You've rather missed the point - overall they appear to make little difference (see Australia or Ontario experience, or the Dutch blokes paper etc etc). So accepting what you say is true - ie they sometimes help - then presumably they make things worse in other ways - otherwise they would help overall - which strangely, they appear not to

Or: the situations where they do help are so vanishingly unlikely to occur that the protective effect is not statistically significant.

I think it would have to be a freak occurrence for a helmet to make the difference between a slight and serious head injury, or between a serious head injury and death. Not impossible, but just so unlikely that we cannot detect the effect.

Note that a skull is tougher than a helmet, so for them to help, you would have to suffer a head impact that was in the narrow band where the energy was more than the skull alone could protect from but less than skull+helmet could protect from.

I will certainly agree that a in a low speed collision or off, they could definitely stop you getting some road rash or cuts and scrapes.