Helemt or not??

[Wolf04]

I've often wondered about the TdF and whether helmets being made compulsory has had any effect on injuries. Seems to me it would be a pretty good model for a study. They seem to have enough accidents to demonstrate any helmet effect either pro or con.
Pete

 

[Origamist]

I prefer a pumpkin - if it's good enough for a PTW rider, then it's good enough for me (I do worry about the stalk and rotational forces though).

 

[domtyler]

I've often wondered about the TdF and whether helmets being made compulsory has had any effect on injuries. Seems to me it would be a pretty good model for a study. They seem to have enough accidents to demonstrate any helmet effect either pro or con.
Pete

Bunch riding is an entirely different matter surely?

 

[John the Monkey]

I've often wondered about the TdF and whether helmets being made compulsory has had any effect on injuries. Seems to me it would be a pretty good model for a study. They seem to have enough accidents to demonstrate any helmet effect either pro or con.

Arguably not, because their crashes aren't with motor vehicles, for the most part.

 

[spindrift]

Do as the elefunt does:

 

[Wolf04]

Arguably not, because their crashes aren't with motor vehicles, for the most part.

Don't remember reading any convincing evidence showing helmets have much effect when motor vehicles are brought into the equation .

 

[spindrift]

Helmets work best at walking-speed topples.

 

[Tynan]

for any accident that knocks you off your bike there's going to be a meeting with the tarmac that may involve cracking your head into the road, I've done that in crash helmets and cycle helmets and been damn happy I was wearing them at the time, that's me, being crushed by a bus isn't the helmet's fault, it's there to help my skull in situations where it might help my skull, I think the adverse risks are relatively minimal

 

[magnatom]

I hear that in Scotland, woks are becoming popular as an alternative to cycle helmets.

If I remember correctly. every time you say wok, I have an extra fiver off a POV.1, is that right. I must be down to about £470 now, keep going...

 

[domtyler]

for any accident that knocks you off your bike there's going to be a meeting with the tarmac that may involve cracking your head into the road, I've done that in crash helmets and cycle helmets and been damn happy I was wearing them at the time, that's me, being crushed by a bus isn't the helmet's fault, it's there to help my skull in situations where it might help my skull, I think the adverse risks are relatively minimal

In that case I assume that you wear one while walking along roads too?

 

[yello]

wok

 

[Bugner]

Surely using the pedestrian argument is farcical based on number of accidents compared to number of pedestrians!?

Having read the info in the link, some of the information gives food for thought, but it does seem that there is a bias towards not wearing.

But what I still can't understand is the emotions that arise from the debate and statements that wearing helmets puts people off riding bikes.

To those non helmet riders, would you stop riding if helmets were made compulsory??

 

[Bokonon]

To those non helmet riders, would you stop riding if helmets were made compulsory??

No, but I am already a cyclist. Compulsion would, I think, decrease the number of people converting to cycling:

a) It would deter those that don't want to look like a mushroom headed cyclist.

At the bottom end of the scale a person can become a cyclist with the purchase of a £50 bike - adding £20 to this cost for a helmet is a significant percent increase in initial outlay which some people may not want to justify.

 

[Riding in Circles]

If I remember correctly. every time you say wok, I have an extra fiver off a POV.1, is that right. I must be down to about £470 now, keep going...

I think you have fallen off once too often.

 

[snorri]

But what I still can't understand is the emotions that arise from the debate and statements that wearing helmets puts people off riding bikes.

I think emotions run high because there are great misconceptions regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
You just have to read the newspaper reports of a child being hurt in a cycle accident where so often the report focusses on whether or not the child was wearing a helmet. Seldom are we told if the bicycle was in a good state of repair, brakes, steering etc., of road or path conditions at the time, was the child 'messing about', performing stunts, or cycling strictly in accordance with the law. Actions could often be taken to prevent similar accidents in future, but the press appear not to be interested in accident prevention, but for reasons best known to themselves feel that cyclists should be encased in armour. Up and coming cyclists who have not read any of the helmet research papers will be influenced by this misinformation in the press and feel it is 'common sense' to wear a helmet. If these people had been fed the truth regarding cycle casualty statistics they would realise the possibility of crashing is low and the possibility of crashing on your head at a slow enough speed for the helmet to protect you is extremely remote.
In life we are constantly assessing risk and deciding to live with it , avoid it, or protect ourselves against it, but I think most utility cyclists will take much greater risks in life than cycling without a helmet.
Apart from the expense, the sheer inconvenience and discomfort of having to wear special clothing for cycling and storage of clothing at destination is obviously a disincentive to cycle usage.