numbnuts
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gone over the hill and far away
I told you soI bet this thread could get to 10 pages long by Monday
Cycle helmets are useless?
- Thread starter sight-pin
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
I wear a helmet because it makes my mum happy
Im 22...
I might have to call ChildLine... my mother has never suggested i should wear a helmet... I feel neglected.
In fact the only member of my family who's asked if I wear a helmet is one of my nieces, and they don't wear helmets either... which i find slightly odd as they all have cycling helmets, pink ones, but they don't wear them... in fact this is more than slightly odd.... this is massively odd... how can a girl resist wearing something pink? Actually on second thoughts... maybe she was trying to give it away.
doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
and your post isnt preachy nonsense ? Ive read hundreds of helmet debates over the years and thousands of posts like yours, youve probably read thousands like mine. Im bored of it, just like im bored of reading about high viz and the commuting forum, dogs off leads, dogs on leads etc. As for rude, "we've a live one here" was one of the first responses, so in other words the usual suspects thought I was game on and the same old scenario happens again.
Im not preaching , I dont actually hold any strong views on the subject. I wear a lid because I think it will offer me some protection having suffered head Injuries in the past . Sometimes I dont wear one - shock horror.
However I will put my hands up and admit to one big mistake and thats wondering into this place.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Not before Tuesday, please.
Learnincurve
Senior Member
- Location
- Chesterfield
I told you so
Oh sweet the baby Jesus I just had to check to see what day it was then.
doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
Oh its you again ? That post wasnt confrontational in the slightest, more tinged with irony than confrontation, you seem very sensitive.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
I think it's time to bring this one out again 
Helmet compulsion is detrimental to population health: -
"It is well established that, if you weigh up the life-years gained through cycling (due to increased physical activity) versus the life years lost (due to injury), the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved. One widely quoted figure for the UK, acknowledged by Government, puts the benefit:disbenefit ratio for the UK at 20:1. Other ratios for other countries are higher still. (N.B. some of the academic references reduce the ratio by including the negative effects of pollution - however that's obviously irrelevant to the helmet debate. If you remove the pollution effect, the other references all come out with ratios above 20:1). But let's take 20:1 for the sake of argument.
From this, recent research shows that, if you tell people to wear helmets (whether by law or simply through promotion campaigns) and this reduces cycle use by more than 1 unit of cycling (e.g. one cyclist, or one km cycled) for every 20 who continue, this is absolutely guaranteed to shorten more lives than helmets could possibly save - even if they were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. leg, arm, shoulder injuries as well as head injuries) for the remaining cyclists. That maximum threshold, beyond which you would be doing more harm than good, then drops further still - down to c2% - once you take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries. And this is still assuming that helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.
In fact, the evidence on the effectiveness of helmets has become increasingly sceptical over time. A recent literature review by Rune Elvik, an internationally recognised authority on road safety, found that the estimates of helmet effectiveness have progressively decreased over time, with the most recent studies showing no net benefit. In this same report he documents evidence that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. In a separate report, Elvik has also found that helmet-wearers suffer 14% more injuries per mile travelled than non-wearers. The reasons for this are unclear, however there is good evidence that (at least some) cyclists ride less cautiously when wearing helmets, and that drivers leave less space when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without.
The only clearly documented effect of enforced helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand or parts of Canada) is to substantially reduce cycle use, typically by about a third. Reductions in cyclists' head injury have been similar to the reductions in cycle use, suggesting no reduction in risk for the remaining cyclists, and in some cases this appears to have worsened. In addition to the possible explanations in the para above, this may also be becuase reductions in cycle use undermine the "safety in numbers" effect for the cyclists who remain - see see www.ctc.org.uk/safetyinnumbers. A clear relationship has been shown between cycle use and cycle safety - cycling is safer in places where cycle use is high (e.g. the Netherlands or Denmark - or within Britain, in Cambridge or York). Telling people to wear helmets, instead of creating safe cycling conditions, is contrary to the aims of encouraging more, as well as safer, cycling.
From this, I hope it is clear that the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets is not the main point. As explained above, even if helmets were 100% effective, you would still be doing more harm than good if you deter more than c2% of cycle use by telling people to wear them. That's because the risks of cycling are not especially high, and the health benefits are SO much greater. You are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking - do we also need walking helmets? - no, of course not! The idea that you need helmets to cycle is both a symptom of our massively exaggerated concern about the "dangers" of cycling, which results in such pitifully low cycle use in Britain.
In short, if we want to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of cycling, we need to focus on creating safe conditions, and thus increasing cycle use. Resorting to helmets simply tackles the symptoms of the problem, not the causes, and thus deters people from cycling. This is pretty much guaranteed to shorten more lives than it could possibly save. Faced with both an obesity crisis and a climate crisis, the last thing we should be doing is driving people into increasingly car-dependent, obesogenic lifestyles."
Roger Geffen CTC
Helmet compulsion is detrimental to population health: -
"It is well established that, if you weigh up the life-years gained through cycling (due to increased physical activity) versus the life years lost (due to injury), the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved. One widely quoted figure for the UK, acknowledged by Government, puts the benefit:disbenefit ratio for the UK at 20:1. Other ratios for other countries are higher still. (N.B. some of the academic references reduce the ratio by including the negative effects of pollution - however that's obviously irrelevant to the helmet debate. If you remove the pollution effect, the other references all come out with ratios above 20:1). But let's take 20:1 for the sake of argument.
From this, recent research shows that, if you tell people to wear helmets (whether by law or simply through promotion campaigns) and this reduces cycle use by more than 1 unit of cycling (e.g. one cyclist, or one km cycled) for every 20 who continue, this is absolutely guaranteed to shorten more lives than helmets could possibly save - even if they were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. leg, arm, shoulder injuries as well as head injuries) for the remaining cyclists. That maximum threshold, beyond which you would be doing more harm than good, then drops further still - down to c2% - once you take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries. And this is still assuming that helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.
In fact, the evidence on the effectiveness of helmets has become increasingly sceptical over time. A recent literature review by Rune Elvik, an internationally recognised authority on road safety, found that the estimates of helmet effectiveness have progressively decreased over time, with the most recent studies showing no net benefit. In this same report he documents evidence that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. In a separate report, Elvik has also found that helmet-wearers suffer 14% more injuries per mile travelled than non-wearers. The reasons for this are unclear, however there is good evidence that (at least some) cyclists ride less cautiously when wearing helmets, and that drivers leave less space when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without.
The only clearly documented effect of enforced helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand or parts of Canada) is to substantially reduce cycle use, typically by about a third. Reductions in cyclists' head injury have been similar to the reductions in cycle use, suggesting no reduction in risk for the remaining cyclists, and in some cases this appears to have worsened. In addition to the possible explanations in the para above, this may also be becuase reductions in cycle use undermine the "safety in numbers" effect for the cyclists who remain - see see www.ctc.org.uk/safetyinnumbers. A clear relationship has been shown between cycle use and cycle safety - cycling is safer in places where cycle use is high (e.g. the Netherlands or Denmark - or within Britain, in Cambridge or York). Telling people to wear helmets, instead of creating safe cycling conditions, is contrary to the aims of encouraging more, as well as safer, cycling.
From this, I hope it is clear that the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets is not the main point. As explained above, even if helmets were 100% effective, you would still be doing more harm than good if you deter more than c2% of cycle use by telling people to wear them. That's because the risks of cycling are not especially high, and the health benefits are SO much greater. You are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking - do we also need walking helmets? - no, of course not! The idea that you need helmets to cycle is both a symptom of our massively exaggerated concern about the "dangers" of cycling, which results in such pitifully low cycle use in Britain.
In short, if we want to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of cycling, we need to focus on creating safe conditions, and thus increasing cycle use. Resorting to helmets simply tackles the symptoms of the problem, not the causes, and thus deters people from cycling. This is pretty much guaranteed to shorten more lives than it could possibly save. Faced with both an obesity crisis and a climate crisis, the last thing we should be doing is driving people into increasingly car-dependent, obesogenic lifestyles."
Roger Geffen CTC
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
are you stalking me Adrian ?
doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
Have you tried removing your shorts when spinning up a Col on a loaded tourer on a hot day ? Its probably the only time I do take it off but thanks for enlightening me that even wearing the thing in the first place is a complete waste of time.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
Have I suggested such a thing?
Are we talking rolled up socks or padded inserts
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
One more time everybody, this time with feeling ...
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGI8YNa5f-M
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGI8YNa5f-M
ComedyPilot
Secret Lemonade Drinker
- Location
- The Kingdom of Yorkshire
I rode 10 miles to the York to Hull FNRttC 2 weeks ago without a helmet.
I rode the 70+ thoroughly enjoyable miles (thanks @dellzeqq ) again with no helmet.
I then made my weary way home 25 miles - again no helmet.
All in perfect safety.
I have ridden on a 4 day 190 mile tour round (hilly) North Yorkshire - no helmet required.
I have ridden all the way around the Netherlands on tour - 900 miles - helmet was in no way shape or form a necessity.
I have ridden a 1400 mile 3 week tour aorund Germany and along the Rhine to Europoort - guess what, no helmet....
Anyone see the pattern here?
Cycling is safe, and those of us that do it are actually quite experienced riders.
Wear one if you want - knock yourself out - but don't wear one because I tell you, wear one because youwant to look a frikkin idiot made the decision. And that's the nugget. It's NOT compulsary, so just because you do, it doesn't mean I have to...the main gripe among the enlightened (non-wearers) is that people that choose to wear the pudding bowl of shame feel the need to somehow lecture non-wearers about their CHOICE.
I rode the 70+ thoroughly enjoyable miles (thanks @dellzeqq ) again with no helmet.
I then made my weary way home 25 miles - again no helmet.
All in perfect safety.
I have ridden on a 4 day 190 mile tour round (hilly) North Yorkshire - no helmet required.
I have ridden all the way around the Netherlands on tour - 900 miles - helmet was in no way shape or form a necessity.
I have ridden a 1400 mile 3 week tour aorund Germany and along the Rhine to Europoort - guess what, no helmet....
Anyone see the pattern here?
Cycling is safe, and those of us that do it are actually quite experienced riders.
Wear one if you want - knock yourself out - but don't wear one because I tell you, wear one because you
Last edited:
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
The same person who told me "you're an idiot of you don't wear one" also tells me i need to go clipless (something to do with pulling up as well as pushing down?).... another guy who also keeps telling to go clipless keeps telling me to swap my fat balloon tyres for thin 'racing' tyres (on an MTB FFS!)... some people just can't help but 'tell' people what they should be doing because if it ain't the same as they do it... it must be wrong.
- Status
