Helmets: Should you wear one?

[HJ]

Seems to me it's the same as when motorbike helmets were banned

They banned motorbike helmets?? When motorbike helmets were made compulsary, the death rate of motorcyclist actually increased.

and when seatbelts were made compulsary. Lots of people whined on about how they didn't save you (quoting some dubious statistics along the way) and it was an affront to personal freedom. Nowadays we all agree it's safer with helmets and seatbelts than without (unless there are still any flat-earthers out there).

The introduction of seatbelts did reduce the injury levels in motorist though.

I particularly love the old "Well it won't save you in a (insert specific incident here) situation". Duh! I know a £50 blob of plastic won't save me if I get blind-sided by a stream roller at 100mph. Nor will my Oakley's really protect me from the flash of a thermo-nuclear explosion, but I don't just chuck them away.

Your Oakley's really protect me from the flash of a thermo-nuclear explosion manly because the sun is a very long way away, if you got alot closer they would no longer work, also try staring directly into the sun and see how much protection they offer then.

I, like most people, look like a twat in my helmet and I think this is the real reason behind people not liking them (the rest is just smoke and mirrors).

Ask yourself this question: Would you make your children wear one? If so, you're admitting that it's safer with one. If not, well.......

The trouble with parent nowadays is they want to rap their kid in cotton wool irrespective of the risk.

The only thing which really make cycling on the roads safer is more cyclists on the roads. Wearing a helmet puts people off, therefore less cyclists on the roads, cycling on the roads becomes more dangerous. It is not rocket science, not has it anything to do with the shape of earth. It is just the application of logic.

 

[DustBowlRefugee]

Just a thought,but dont these offer a bit more protection,plus they dont have the sticky out bits that are supposed to add slipstream help,whats your opinions?

I'm sure this is a more protective helmet, I use a similar one (Bell Metropolitan) when I use my bike for getting around rather than training. The real problem that I find is that it got way too hot and sweaty so I bought a lightweight racing type too. Probably not as safe but to be honest I'd rather the padding of a fag paper between my head and the road than nothing.

Having said that, I fully understand that some people are convinced that wearing a helmet makes car drivers more aggressive in their positioning and as such can actually be more dangerous than not wearing one. Following this logic I shall no longer carry a spare inner tube.

 

[DustBowlRefugee]

They banned motorbike helmets?? When motorbike helmets were made compulsary, the death rate of motorcyclist actually increased.

Not sure how to edit the quotes on this one......


Sorry for the banned/obligatory balls-up; but you can't really be suggesting that it's safer on a motorcycle without a helmet?? Not sure about the death rate stats either! Have you ever had a bumble bee hit you the chin ton-up? You're not that mad bearded jock from MAG that I got pissed with at the NEC in 1981 with a K900 triple and no lid, are you? If so, I've still got your Yes cassette somewhere...


I agree wholeheartedly that more cyclists equals more safety and that helmets (or at least the image they portray) do discourage people from cycling. I have only started to wear mine in the last six months or so because they have, in a way, become more acceptable. You must concur however that there are more recreational cyclists now than ever before (whilst I live more than 15 miles from my nearest traffic lights, commuting is still impossible for me) and lots more are wearing some form of protective headgear.

I digress to a personal anecdote:
In 1976 I used to cycle to Herne Hill every Tuesday afternoon with a few friends. We would never have considered wearing a helmet on the way there or back (I'm not sure you could even buy them from Wilson's in Peckham and even if you could - you would have been the biggest tosser in London). When we arrived however we all strapped the silly vinyl covered thing on and had a great time. Mr Banson (who ran the thing) wouldn't allow anyone on the track without one. Funny really but we didn't consider ourselves self-gratification artists whilst racing.

If headgear appeared "cool" I'm sure that it would be more acceptable. I would not wish wish to legislate to impose it but I at would think it's in all our interests to encourage it. What would convince your baby-wrapping mum's to get their pride and joy out and about? If it's a £20 add-on from Halfords; I say "one more bike on the road".

My mum didn't put be in a seatbelt in 1959 - It didn't hurt me. What should I do to my children? And she smoked whilst she was pregnant - Probably explains a lot........

Have a nice bank hols.
Mark

 

[Brock]

So you've only worn one for a last six months because they've reached a certain level of cool.
Nice to see people thinking for themselves isn't it.

 

[Chris James]

dear god this argument exhausts me

'at 38mph'

anyone riding at 38mph on a regular basis?

Yes. Me. Don't you often hit 38mph? Perpas you aren't trying hard enough??!!

Okay, so I don't hit 38 mph for long, but would probably reach or exceed that on most rides. There are a lot of long downhills around here. In fact, having experienced high speed shimmy on an old bike, the prospect of coming off and hitting a concrete bollard at the side of the road on a long downhill is the one thing that scares me enough to wish I had a helmet. Which is ironic as, at those speeds, the helmet wouldn't really help me much!

 

[Tynan]

it'd help you more than no helmet

and hey, you might head first the tarmac at a miserable 20mph, and it doesn't have to be a head on, a glancing blow at a high speed can equate to a lower speed collision

your brains fella, fill your boots

 

[alfablue]

and hey, you might head first the tarmac at a miserable 20mph, and it doesn't have to be a head on, a glancing blow at a high speed can equate to a lower speed collision

I fear you may be talking a bit too much sense there, Tynan

 

[Tynan]

sorry, can't help it, it has no place or influence on this matter anyway, so fear not

 

[Chris James]

Glancing blow? Cue argument about extra rotational forces imparted by the helmet causing worse head injury.

As it happens Tynan, I think you are probably correct. If I was in a high speed crash it is likely that a helmet would actually help more than not wearing a helmet - which is why I wrote 'wouldn't really help me much' rather than 'at all'.

Of course I would also be helped if I was wearing full body armour .... you do wear full body armour when cycling on rural roads don't you Tynan?

 

[Chris James]

I was actually being facetious by jokingly alluding to another well worn argument.

In all my posts I have tried to avoid making any form of claims, either for or against helmet use. I tend to the view that it is up to the individual to assess the risk and act accordingly. So there is no 'should' you wear a helmet, merely whether or not you chooose to.

Merely being ambivalent about helmets doesn't seem to be enough for the helmet loving zealots out there though.

If you want evidence, and since you lot seem to treat individual experience rather than population level studies as evidence, then just consult Ravenbait's post about her neck injury - page 7 on the Great Helmet Debate thread.

 

[Tynan]

you do wear full body armour when cycling on rural roads don't you Tynan?

no I don't

as I've posted over and over and even to this very point, broadly speaking the rest of the body gets better or can be fixed, the brain is more or less the only thing that's irreplaceable and unlikely to get better after a serious injury

but you know that

and the armour argument is not an argument against helmets is it?

just more smoke and mirrors to avoid the simple argument about a helmet being good to have in an accident

I seriously consider that people doing the no helmet argument are having a go at sophistry, that or in serious pig headed denial

 

[Tynan]

If you want evidence, and since you lot seem to treat individual experience rather than population level studies as evidence, then just consult Ravenbait's post about her neck injury - page 7 on the Great Helmet Debate thread.

tell me that's a joke, so is individual experience valid or not?

 

[mickle]

Pardon me for not reading the 13 preceding pages but may I just ask if anyone has introduced the concept of risk compensation into the thread?

 

[mickle]

Oh and BTW.

Do you wear a helmet?

Should they be made compulsory?

No.

Absolutely not.

 

[alfablue]

Pardon me for not reading the 13 preceding pages but may I just ask if anyone has introduced the concept of risk compensation into the thread?

Risk compensation is a relevant point, however, I have asked before about the ongoing nature of this.

I would suggest that risk comoensation may fluctuate depending upon experience and / or over time. In my own case I had a serious accident (wearing a helmet) and I believe any effects of risk compensation have been diminished by heightened risk awareness. I believe that risk compensation effects may be greater amongst adolescents and young adults, aongst whom accidents (of any kind) are the greatest risk to life. As one gets older I believe risks are generally more accurately perceived. Risk compensation may play a part in confounding the population effects of helmets, but I also believe that it is not a once and for all, steady state phenomenon, and as such is not a sufficient argument against helmet use in itself. (Just to make my position clear, I advocate helmet use for myself, but am not keen on compulsion).