Cycle Helmet

[StuartG]

Who's arguing?

You agree? Good.

 

[Alun]

FIFY. (Comparing an objective and subjective statement doesn't get us anywhere ...)

You haven't "fixed it" you've altered it to what you want to say.
I stand by what I said, you are entitled to make your own statements.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Today I rode my recently finished Raleigh City vintage ride to work. ( see the vintage forum) I wore a cycle helmet for the first time. Ive ridden for years and never worn one, MY other half bought me one the other day so I thought Id start wearing it.
Was amazed at the reaction of the other bike riders at work taking the p**s out of me. non of them wear helmets so I did kinda feel the odd one out. I know my luck though, now Ive got one if I dont wear it I just know IM going over the handlebars.
I interested in your views on wearing a helmet.

The rebuilt bike looks wonderful. Lovely job - although I tend towards the current, I like the look you've chosen.

I had quite the opposite response at work when riding in - cyclist and non-cyclist alike would suggest I should wear a helmet, for the sake of my children if not myself (?).

I wore one occasionally and for some time I got slight jitters when going without. This uncomfortable feeling you have about 'inviting trouble' if you go without a helmet is quite common. There is no cure I know.

However, I rarely wear one now and to date it hasn't hurt me. I've been hit only once in the past two years (a SMIDSY while not wearing a helmet). Damage to my shoulder, but not a scratch on my noggin.

My favourite headwear is a cotton casquette. It soaks up the sweat and keeps the sun out of my eyes. It is almost perfect. In frosty, cold weather I wear a woolly hat.

You've ridden for years without a helmet, as had I. It comes down to choice. There are zealots and crazies on both sides of this issue, but there's a lot of room on the fence with those of us who can't get too uppity about it.

Enjoy that excellent bicycle you've restored. If you enjoy it more with a hat on, then wear one.

 

[StuartG]

You haven't "fixed it" you've altered it to what you want to say.

Do you have any convincing evidence for that? 'Cos you are wrong.

Meanwhile returning to your orginal point - little or no evidence can never be convincing one way or another. Bit obvious if you think about it for a nanosecond. Or are you arguing there is a lot of evidence?

 

[growingvegetables]

The one single glorious truth in all this ...... is that cycling is actually so safe that any statistics are inevitably far too small to create solid cases for or against.

Don't argue about it - just get out there on the road and celebrate it! With/without - your call.

 

[Red Light]

[quote="mr Mag00, post: 1853758, member: 1500"just to put the post in some perspective and not quite a selective view of the program. the professions who deal with this type of injury are in no doubt about the benefits of wearing head protection whilst cycling.[/quote]

Not all of them - there is a good proportion of the medical profession who have significant doubts. But to put those who are in no doubt about the benefits in perspective, when my daughter came off her bike without a helmet recently (pedestrian stepped out in front of her) the 12 medics she encountered in A&E were all adamant that she should have been wearing a helmet. What was not clear was how a helmet would have helped with two cracked teeth, a bitten through lip, a broken nose and grazed cheek. Perhaps they thought it would intelligently rotate forward during the crash to protect her face or perhaps its an indication of belief over knowledge.

 

[Red Light]

The one single glorious truth in all this ...... is that cycling is actually so safe that any statistics are inevitably far too small to create solid cases for or against.

And so safe that any minor differences in whether they protect or harm is unlikely to be of any relevance to you. Just remember 10 million Boris Bike journeys to date without helmets and not one serious injury let alone a serious head injury.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

You agree? Good.

The American motorcycle comment was to illustrate how something controversial can become acceptable regardless of the evidence either for or against.

My own personal belief, without even looking at any evidence is that having something on your head must be better than having nothing.

I don't have an opinion on whether it should be law, I think it should be personal choice without prejudice or ridicule.

Having said that...whisper...James Cracknell...(sneaks away to watch the fireworks...)

 

[StuartG]

My own personal belief, without even looking at any evidence is that having something on your head must be better than having nothing.

May I suggest that your comment is sound common sense. My field, as is much of science, is about showing what common sense is bunkum and hence how society can best benefit by ignoring it.

Nevertheless I will defend your right to that belief. I have some strange beliefs too. Like that irrespective of personal belief public policy should be based, whenever possible, on firm evidence.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

May I suggest that your comment is sound common sense. My field, as is much of science, is about showing what common sense is bunkum and hence how society can best benefit by ignoring it.

Nevertheless I will defend your right to that belief. I have some strange beliefs too. Like that irrespective of personal belief public policy should be based, whenever possible, on firm evidence.

So, at the risk of lighting the touch paper, where does the firm evidence point to?

 

[StuartG]

So, at the risk of lighting the touch paper, where does the firm evidence point to?

That's the point, the quality of evidence is insufficient to show whether the benefits of wearing a helmet are greater than the disbenefits. In summary the latter include:

* Raising the cyclist's risk threshold
* Being seen as less vulnerable by other road users and hence endangered.
* Restraining the growth of cycling (being seen as dangerous) with protection of numbers
* Diverting crash prevention advice from other proven measures

As for the benefits (mitigation of head injury) even the magnitude is not clear. What help helmets are when your head makes contact with an object has to be balanced by the incidence of such an event. Wearing a helmet, AFAIK, does nothing to reduce this. It is unclear how much it may increase it.

That's why no one has been able to show objectively whether its better to wear than not. That's the mainstream position amongst statisticians.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

Anecdotal evidence is often patchy and unreliable but it does throw up interesting arguments and scenarios such as the guy who crashed and had a rock stuck into his helmet, said rock would have at the worst caused a gash in the head which...would hurt at best.

In the same way that I 'know' there is no God, I have to go with my gut and say wearing one is better than not.

I would be interested in the argument regarding how effective the helmets we currently have actually are compared to what we could have?

I used to ride a motorbike and I was always hearing the 'nude' rider theory about feeling invincible when the risk is lower and that would be ok except diesel on the Tarmac or skippy road markings or blind bastards and side roads don't really care how careful you are being.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I too am interested by the notion that there is clear evidence of cyclists exposing themselves to more danger when wearing a helmet.

It is an interesting idea and I am in no doubt that there are reams of data to prove it's right.

However, the two following observations (although personal and unrepresentative) cast a smidgin of doubt on it:

1. I am often unaware that I have a helmet on. I reach up to scratch my sclp on a hot ride and find plastic where I didn't expect to.... I cannot be the only cyclist (apart from those who always wear a helmet) who often forgets whether he/she is wearing one. That being so, how can I be exposing myself to greater risk when I am unaware that I have a hat on?

2. I do get scared on fast descents. I do these both with and without a helmet. I'm scared I'll puncture; I'm scared about close passes by cars barely exceeding my speed; I'm scared of fuel hiding on wet approaches to bends; I'm scared that an imperfection in the road surface will set off a wobble. But the outcome that scares me is that of removing skin from my hips and limbs as I decelerate from speed on blacktop. So... When the outcome that scares me is one unaffected by the presence of a helmet, why would I take more risks when wearing a helmet?

Just a thought.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

I too am interested by the notion that there is clear evidence of cyclists exposing themselves to more danger when wearing a helmet.

It is an interesting idea and I am in no doubt that there are reams of data to prove it's right.

However, the two following observations (although personal and unrepresentative) cast a smidgin of doubt on it:

1. I am often unaware that I have a helmet on. I reach up to scratch my sclp on a hot ride and find plastic where I didn't expect to.... I cannot be the only cyclist (apart from those who always wear a helmet) who often forgets whether he/she is wearing one. That being so, how can I be exposing myself to greater risk when I am unaware that I have a hat on?

2. I do get scared on fast descents. I do these both with and without a helmet. I'm scared I'll puncture; I'm scared about close passes by cars barely exceeding my speed; I'm scared of fuel hiding on wet approaches to bends; I'm scared that an imperfection in the road surface will set off a wobble. But the outcome that scares me is that of removing skin from my hips and limbs as I decelerate from speed on blacktop. So... When the outcome that scares me is one unaffected by the presence of a helmet, why would I take more risks when wearing a helmet?

Just a thought.

Well said. Good points.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are the helmet wearing riders more experienced, faster and more prone to taking risks? Are the non-helmet riders slower and more cautious (and therefore less likely to have accidents and to have accidents at slower speeds)?

.

According to the DfT research drivers perceive cyclists in cycling clothing / helmets as more experienced and competent, regardless of their actual experience.

They were shown "stereotype cyclists" such as a child on a BMX, racing cyclist, woman on a situp and beg etc, and th.en asked questions about how they would react

The problem is that the drivers felt that these more experienced cyclists did not need them to slow down or give room as they would "be able to cope" with closer passes. They therefore did not need to make any change in their road position or speed.