I love helmets

[Mugshot]

I'll answer, although I'm in the middle group in that I wear a helmet sometimes.

I bought a helmet when I got back in to riding because I believed that is what you did nowadays. I chose not to wear it for everything because I felt sometimes it made sense and sometimes it didn't.

Bingo!
Not picking on your post @w00hoo_kent it was very interesting.

 

[Mugshot]

I have a colleague who is a keen runner. Last time I saw him he showed me a family photo of him, wife, children, and dog. They were in the park with bikes all wearing helmets, dog excepted.
He told me he had been running when he tripped and hit his head on a lamppost. Split open needing stitches and concussion. I asked whether any mention had been made of helmets in A&E. None had.
I told him that I had recently fallen of my bike when it threw its chain, and cut my elbow requiring stitches. When I went to A&E much mention was made of helmets, including some figures that would have been improbable had every cyclist in London with a head injury been taken to that one hospital.

I can tell an almost identical story, my friend, occasional cyclist, regular runner, constant helmet activist, fell and bashed his head whilst running, my suggestion he should have been wearing a helmet was not appreciated.

 

[Mugshot]

Yes i stand corrected, I'm not afraid to admit when I am wrong. Impossible was it's fair to say too strong a word

To the non helmet wearers, I'd be interest to know what age you are, and any of you started cycling in recent years, is the reason for not wearing one on the grounds of head injuries or just that you really do not want to wear one for other reasons

Has your opinion changed at all @Big_Dave? I assume you've read some of the links and you've certainly read at least some of the posts.

 

[benb]

Yes i stand corrected, I'm not afraid to admit when I am wrong. Impossible was it's fair to say too strong a word

To the non helmet wearers, I'd be interest to know what age you are, and any of you started cycling in recent years, is the reason for not wearing one on the grounds of head injuries or just that you really do not want to wear one for other reasons

I cycled a lot as a boy, mainly to mates houses and never wore a helmet. Nor do I remember my parents or anyone else suggesting I should.
I started cycling "properly" about 5 or 6 years ago, and did wear a helmet to begin with, as it's obvious innit.

But then I began to look into the evidence in a bit more detail, and decided that the minuscule risk simply wasn't worth the effort, and I find cycling much more enjoyable without one.

I'm 39.

 

[Mugshot]

Sorry it was a genuine question not one to mock non helmet wearers, I am not against people wearing helmets, for every argument against wearing a helmet there will also be an argument for wearing one and vice versa, I dare say both sides of the fence the truth is stretched in their favour
as with any activity,there are risks, it's not dangerous until the point of accident

What I like about this post is it doesn't mention cycling, so I can insert any activity I like.

Exactly, it is as though there is a list of dangerous activities and that anything not on it is therefore safe.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

You mean a bit like this?
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-incidence-of-bike-helmet-wearing-in-central-london.152678/

Statistically speaking, you need about 1000 observations to be sure your answer is within about 3 percentage points of the true population incidence, but unless you have a very geographically diverse set of observations all you'll be doing (like I did) is measuring the incidence in one specific location.

As it happens, I think that's valuable in itself.

And as it also happens, based on observations in London and a number of separate affluent commuter towns in the South-East of England I suspect the incidence of transport cycling, and helmetless transport cycling in particular, is growing.

Yes, like that. While I'm not the type to join a group and get all political, I'd be happy to donate some time to doing something like. Strikes me as handy data to have to hand.

 

[Dan B]

48½, been cycling all my life. I don't wear a helmet because cycling is not dangerous.

Same here, except I'm not 48½ for another 8 years

 

[w00hoo_kent]

What evidence, and what other things?

The easiest one is that we are using a website that has a specific subforum on it devoted to cyclists that have been in accidents. I've mentioned this before, but the only other 'forum' I'm on that does something similar is a motorbike one. I'd suggest if we're getting sufficient reports of cyclists in accidents to make having a separate space for it worthwhile and other activities aren't, that this activity might be more dangerous than those are.

Similarly, if you get a group of cyclists together and start talking about crashes, accidents, or almost crashes then the conversation won't grind to a halt because nobody has a relevant story they want to chip in with. There are other activities this would happen in, there are quite a few it wouldn't.

These two things alone would suggest to me that it's more dangerous than other things and suggesting it isn't is an interesting stance to take.

Why bother? Who cares if people want to wear a helmet? The 'convincing' efforts always run in the opposite direction in my experience.

I was just interested, considering the conversation was about head injuries caused doing things where helmets weren't expected, and lack of head injuries where they were it seemed like a reasonable direction the conversation might go in. Similarly I guess would be the question 'so do you now run in a helmet?'

 

[benb]

The easiest one is that we are using a website that has a specific subforum on it devoted to cyclists that have been in accidents. I've mentioned this before, but the only other 'forum' I'm on that does something similar is a motorbike one. I'd suggest if we're getting sufficient reports of cyclists in accidents to make having a separate space for it worthwhile and other activities aren't, that this activity might be more dangerous than those are.

Similarly, if you get a group of cyclists together and start talking about crashes, accidents, or almost crashes then the conversation won't grind to a halt because nobody has a relevant story they want to chip in with. There are other activities this would happen in, there are quite a few it wouldn't.

These two things alone would suggest to me that it's more dangerous than other things and suggesting it isn't is an interesting stance to take.



I was just interested, considering the conversation was about head injuries caused doing things where helmets weren't expected, and lack of head injuries where they were it seemed like a reasonable direction the conversation might go in. Similarly I guess would be the question 'so do you now run in a helmet?'

That's hardly a reliable dataset to base any conclusions from.
Try this for a start: http://cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

Edit to add, and this, which reiterates that walking and cycling have similar risks: http://road.cc/content/news/68212-d...driving-cycling-walking-and-motorcycling-risk

 

[Big Nick]

Whatever you may personally perceive, the evidence is crystal clear that there are many everyday activities, not just being a pedestrian, where the risk of head injuries, both relative and absolute, are similar to cycling, or even higher.

No one has promoted stair-climbing helmets though. Why not? Maybe it's because, like cycling, the risk is so low as to be not worth the intervention.

Why can't you accept that regardless of whatever 'evidence' you wish to cherry pick off the Internet to suit your side of the debate some people base their decisions on their own personal experiences?

Just one personal experience can make you disproportionatly wary, I fell off my bike and hurt myself far more than I've ever done when walking and suffered concussion. I was glad I had something to lessen the impact on my head

The vast majority of cyclists I see near where I live wear helmets so probably have a similar view, it's different to yours but no less valid in their minds.

 

[Mugshot]

These two things alone would suggest to me that it's more dangerous than other things and suggesting it isn't is an interesting stance to take.

Did you read the links in the srws' post which you liked?

Well - here's what the CTC have to say:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/cycling-guide/cycle-helmets-overview-evidence

Here's what the CTC's Roger Geffen writes on the subject of the BMA's pro-helmet stance:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-ge...-usa-safety-authorities-drop-key-helmet-claim

And here's Geffen commenting on what's going on in government:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cycle-helmets-bill-nothing-hot-air-135782

Incidentally, as well as being an intelligent campaigner he has very good taste in music, too. We've met him two or three times at concerts and the opera.

 

[Big Nick]

Just read some stuff on the Internet about pedestrian deaths etc which claims anything up to 60% are under the influence of alcohol when the incident occurs

As I don't drink alcohol does that now mean in my case cycling is more dangerous than walking?

 

[Big Nick]

'We' (if I may be allowed to speak for those of us who don't wear helmets) do accept that, and have said so again and again. It's a matter of faith. The difficulty comes when the faith is passed off as evidence, and might lead eventually to compulsion.

I didn't realise this thread was about the compulsion issue? Isn't it about whether a helmet's worth wearing to protect your bonce?

 

[benb]

Why can't you accept that regardless of whatever 'evidence' you wish to cherry pick off the Internet to suit your side of the debate some people base their decisions on their own personal experiences?

Just one personal experience can make you disproportionatly wary, I fell off my bike and hurt myself far more than I've ever done when walking and suffered concussion. I was glad I had something to lessen the impact on my head

The vast majority of cyclists I see near where I live wear helmets so probably have a similar view, it's different to yours but no less valid in their minds.

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm just trying to get you to understand why you have decided that cycling is risky enough to wear a helmet, but other activities are not.

I'm not trying to get you to not wear a helmet, but simply to illuminate some of the wider issues and inconsistencies.

Edit: You putting evidence in quote marks above is quite crass and offensive TBH. If you choose to ignore the evidence that cycling is low risk and that helmets offer no statistically significant benefit, that's up to you, but don't belittle those of us who actually think critically about the issue please.

 

[Big Nick]

Isn't ineffectiveness subjective though?

Someone suffers a head injury after wearing a helmet....how would we determine the effect had it not been there?