Cycle helmets are useless?

[ufkacbln]

Hmm...you raise some fair points. I guess the rationalisation is that there is a tradeoff between my enjoyment of cycling (of which going downhill faster than 12mph is a significant component) and the inherent risk in doing so.

The issue really in this case is whether wearing a helmet reduces my risk of serious injury when whizzing downhill by 0%, 1%, 99% or whatever. If it's 1% then your argument is quite reasonable but were that it was, let's say, 10% then I think the balance of the argument changes

Full motorcycle helmet up the Snake Pass on a warm day = 100% chance of heatstroke so I'll give that one a swerve if you don't mind.

So long as you have looked at the evidence and made an informed choice then whichever answer suits you is fine.

The reason why I asked this was that it shows a dichotomy

The pro-helmet lobby tends to feel able to assess their risk and take decisions on that assessment... this is deemed acceptable
Yet someone making a similar assessment and deciding that in their case a helmet is not required is unacceptable and that person is "stupid" or a "nugget"

 

[nickyboy]

So long as you have looked at the evidence and made an informed choice then whichever answer suits you is fine.

The reason why I asked this was that it shows a dichotomy

The pro-helmet lobby tends to feel able to assess their risk and take decisions on that assessment... this is deemed acceptable
Yet someone making a similar assessment and deciding that in their case a helmet is not required is unacceptable and that person is "stupid" or a "nugget"

I presume by the same token you would be in favour of repealing the laws regarding motorcyclist helmets and car seatbelts?

Not arguing for arguing's sake, I am genuinely interested in taking your view on an individual's right to self assess risk and stretching it a bit

 

[Mugshot]

Chocolate !

You are fully aware that the bar of chocolate is a sin, yet you still eat it.

If God had stopped everyone eating chocolate where would we be?












... apart from a few pound lighter

If it were a chocolate navtivity scene I can see there may be an issue, the occasional Twix wont hurt though surely?

 

[Sara_H]

I presume by the same token you would be in favour of repealing the laws regarding motorcyclist helmets and car seatbelts?

No, because there is very firm evidence that motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts significantly reduce serious injuries. The same can not be said of cycle helmets.

 

[snorri]

Which is why all children should wear a Thudguard

Jeez, we're two and a half pages in before the thudguards appear, sharpen up there Cunobelin.

 

[nickyboy]

No, because there is very firm evidence that motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts significantly reduce serious injuries. The same can not be said of cycle helmets.

So if there was very firm evidence would you be in favour of passing a law making cycling helmets compulsory?

 

[Sara_H]

So if there was very firm evidence would you be in favour of passing a law making cycling helmets compulsory?

Possibly.

 

[nickyboy]

Cunobelin isn't the only one to enjoy exploring a dichotomy in thinking....

 

[MontyVeda]

So if there was very firm evidence would you be in favour of passing a law making cycling helmets compulsory?

such 'firm' evidence, i suspect would also pave the way for compulsory pedestrian and driver/passenger helmets too.... there's always a risk of head injury no matter the activity.

 

[Profpointy]

So if there was very firm evidence would you be in favour of passing a law making cycling helmets compulsory?

but there isn't though is there ?

(and anyway, no, as I tend more to the libertarian view on most matters)

And by the way, would the same argument apply to "pedestrian helmets" or thudguards (above) ?

 

[ufkacbln]

I presume by the same token you would be in favour of repealing the laws regarding motorcyclist helmets and car seatbelts?

Not arguing for arguing's sake, I am genuinely interested in taking your view on an individual's right to self assess risk and stretching it a bit

Lets start at the beginning then.....

Motor cycle helmets are designed and rated to perform at the speeds motorcycles travel, whereas cycle helmets are not. Far from repaling the motorcycle law, my opinion is that if we are going to encourage helmets you should be looking at helmets that (like motorcycle helmets) are designed and able to function at the speeds the cyclists travel.

As for seatbelts, they are unique to cars, and proven to function (unlike cycle helmets)

There have been a number of posts that state that anyone who does not wear a helmet is "very very silly", and that is the point here.

if you are wearing a helmet for safety reasons then common sense says that you should be travelling at a speed where the helmet is designed to function.
Yet most of the pro-helmet lobby feel that an increasing their chance of a head injury, and the seriousness of that head injury by travelling at higher speeds is acceptable.


The question is why they allow themselves the right to take that risk, yet condemn someone who has decide on an identical thought process not to wear one.

What I fail to understand is the hypocrisy of allowing oneself to assess risk and act upon it, but then deny others the same right.

 

[ufkacbln]

Jeez, we're two and a half pages in before the thudguards appear, sharpen up there Cunobelin.

I was waiting for a prompt!

 

[Mugshot]

The question is why they allow themselves the right to take that risk, yet condemn someone who has decide on an identical thought process not to wear one.

What I fail to understand is the hypocrisy of allowing oneself to assess risk and act upon it, but then deny others the same right.

I suspect you already know the answer to this. My experience is that not one person that I have spoken to about cycle helmets has any idea what so ever that there is a rating at all, and when it is pointed out they don't believe you.

 

[ufkacbln]

I suspect you already know the answer to this. My experience is that not one person that I have spoken to about cycle helmets has any idea what so ever that there is a rating at all, and when it is pointed out they don't believe you.

Absolutely, which is yet another reason why blind aherence to the "helmets are wonderful and everyone should wear them" dogma needs to be challenged.

In the UK the requirement for sale is to pass EN1078

This standard is so low that it is a joke.

In the US you would be banned from a sporting event if you turned up with one that only passed EN 1078 as it is not considered to offfer adequate ptotection.

Even in the UK there are some organisers who ask that helmets are of a far higher standard than this. UK Cycling events insist (at least on paper):

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

 

[nickyboy]

Lets start at the beginning then.....

Motor cycle helmets are designed and rated to perform at the speeds motorcycles travel, whereas cycle helmets are not. Far from repaling the motorcycle law, my opinion is that if we are going to encourage helmets you should be looking at helmets that (like motorcycle helmets) are designed and able to function at the speeds the cyclists travel.

As for seatbelts, they are unique to cars, and proven to function (unlike cycle helmets)

There have been a number of posts that state that anyone who does not wear a helmet is "very very silly", and that is the point here.

if you are wearing a helmet for safety reasons then common sense says that you should be travelling at a speed where the helmet is designed to function.
Yet most of the pro-helmet lobby feel that an increasing their chance of a head injury, and the seriousness of that head injury by travelling at higher speeds is acceptable.


The question is why they allow themselves the right to take that risk, yet condemn someone who has decide on an identical thought process not to wear one.

What I fail to understand is the hypocrisy of allowing oneself to assess risk and act upon it, but then deny others the same right.

My interest here is that I presume most would not be in favour of motorcyclists being allowed to assess personal risk and make a personal decision regarding whether to wear a helmet whereas the opposite seems to apply to pedal cyclists. Whilst I appreciate that the evidence is strongly in favour of the efficacy of motorcycle helmets I am struggling to understand the principle of two diametrically opposed positions on what is ostensibly the same issue

I do agree with you that having a test requiring a cycling helmet to pass a 12mph impact is inadequate. Given that cycling around these parts largely consists of a ball-achingly slow ascent followed by a hurtling descent, I would certainly support speed rating for them.