I love helmets

[Mugshot]

You may have been able to infer that by the fact that I chose to use refer to the stance that I considered a degree of injury to be sufficient for something to be dangerous, rather than for it to be actively deadly.

*Another anecdote alert*
I have twice this year (that I can immediately call to mind) banged my head on cupboards in my kitchen. One of them really really hurt as it was an open wall unit door and I stood up into it having been digging around in the cupboard below. I cannot believe for a moment that I have walked more miles in my kitchen than I have cycled this year (I do not have the data to back this up) yet I have so far managed not to fall off my bike at all this year, nevermind bang my head. So per mile from my experience it would appear that my kitchen is more dangerous than cycling. Yet the suggestion that I should wear a helmet when in my kitchen, even though it may have prevented injury would and should be treated with derision.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

They are quite long aren't they.

Especially when I'm supposed to be doing dull stuff too :-)

I may have sounded somewhat brusque in my question it wasn't my intention, perhaps "Have you had a chance to" would have sounded better.

That's OK, it's the internet, it's a given. I'm pretty sure my latest response to TMN needed even more time spent on sugar coating it. Rest assured I'm trying to have a chat about this, life's too short to get upset about stuff strangers write on forums.

I'm not sure that anybody is suggesting that cycling has no danger attached to it

I'm going to beg to differ on that one, if only because I could look back over the last few pages here and find 'because cycling isn't dangerous' as a specific quote from multiple people and this isn't the first discussion that that view point has been raised in. It may be that I'm reading too much in to it and it's really short hand for 'because cycling isn't very dangerous and you can do a lot to make it safer' but at the moment I think that might be over generous on my part. Hopefully I'm just getting the wrong end of the stick. Either way, I don't believe helmets are the panacea.

 

[srw]

@w00hoo_kent - no-one is saying there is no danger. The assertion is that the danger is similar to, or less than, the danger in activities that are generally perceived as so safe that no PPE is required.

I don't always wear a helmet because I'm a senior risk professional and take risk assessments very seriously. All the evidence is that a helmet is a considerably less effective risk mitigant than others, such as riding at an appropriate speed on a well-maintained bike using appropriate road positioning and an appropriate level of assertiveness to other traffic.

 

[Mugshot]

I'm going to beg to differ on that one, if only because I could look back over the last few pages here and find 'because cycling isn't dangerous' as a specific quote from multiple people and this isn't the first discussion that that view point has been raised in. It may be that I'm reading too much in to it and it's really short hand for 'because cycling isn't very dangerous and you can do a lot to make it safer' but at the moment I think that might be over generous on my part. Hopefully I'm just getting the wrong end of the stick. Either way, I don't believe helmets are the panacea.

This is interesting, to me "isn't dangerous" does not mean is without danger, to me it refers to the chance of injury, a quick google seems to suggest that dangerous means likely to cause harm. Cycling isn't dangerous it is not however without risk, few things are. At the risk of speaking for others I suspect that's what they mean too.

 

[benb]

Are you serious....pot and kettle come to mind from the 'evidenced' based cyclist!

What do you mean exactly? You have dismissed the evidence, choosing to trump it with your narrow perceptions and anecdotes.
Whereas I have actually looked at the evidence and come to a properly informed decision.

You have continually dodged the questions put to you about why you consider cycling risky enough to justify helmet wearing, but not other activities which are quite categorically a similar risk to cycling.

 

[ianrauk]

[QUOTE="w00hoo_kent, post: 3329714, member: 36674"


It may be that I'm reading too much in to it and it's really short hand for 'because cycling isn't very dangerous and you can do a lot to make it safer' but at the moment I think that might be over generous on my part. Hopefully I'm just getting the wrong end of the stick.[/QUOTE]

You are getting the wrong end of the stick. Day to day Cycling isn't a dangerous activity (unless you are throwing yourself down mountains or racing full on in a bunch etc)

 

[w00hoo_kent]

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.

OK, having read through these the pertinent bits

Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by clear information about the uncertainties over the benefits or otherwise of helmets.

Schools, employers and the organisers of non-sporting cycling events (e.g. sponsored rides) should not seek to impose helmet rules for their pupils, staff and participants respectively. These rules are not justified in terms of health and safety, they are likely to reduce both the numbers and the diversity of people who take part in cycling, and they may in some circumstances be illegal.

seem to suggest that the NEC event didn't sit well with CTC policy and so I kind of hold with the idea that surely it would have been a good use of their time to talk to the organisers of the event and if the reason for compulsion was insurance based to look in to changing that need, based on evidence, rather than just accepting it. Again, no matter what the arguments here, if the big demonstrations of cycling repeatedly show cyclists in helmets then the presumption is going to be cyclists should have helmets on. That would seem to be a worthy place to have the battle to me. Still I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.

 

[srw]

The CTC might well have spoken to the organisers, and the CTC mag regularly discusses the fact that it makes a point of showing unlidded riders.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

You are getting the wrong end of the stick. Day to day Cycling isn't a dangerous activity (unless you are throwing yourself down mountains or racing full on in a bunch etc)

So, why do we all know someone who has been hurt doing it?

Honestly, I'm not being pointlessly argumentative here. I'm just not getting the justification.

 

[ianrauk]

So, why do we all know someone who has been hurt doing it?

Honestly, I'm not being pointlessly argumentative here. I'm just not getting the justification.

To quote the old chestnut.. yes but we also know people who have hurt themselves falling over in the street or falling down the stars.. so why aren't people & peds wearing and being forced to wear helmets.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

The CTC might well have spoken to the organisers, and the CTC mag regularly discusses the fact that it makes a point of showing unlidded riders.

Fingers crossed they make a better stab at it next year then. With the best will in the world, their own magazine is pretty much preaching to the choir.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

To quote the old chestnut.. yes but we also know people who have hurt themselves falling over in the street or falling down the stars.. so why aren't people & peds wearing and being forced to wear helmets.

I'm not sure I do though.
How many people do you know who fell down the stairs this year? How about who injured themselves falling over in the street? How many people do you know who have been injured or died cycling over the same period?

 

[ianrauk]

I'm not sure I do though.
How many people do you know who fell down the stairs this year? How about who injured themselves falling over in the street? How many people do you know who have been injured or died cycling over the same period?

Stairs? Me for one. Except I don't go bleating about it on the internet. The street? My wife last march. Once again I don't feel the need to blab about it on the internet or to tell her to wear a helmet for her own safety. Is that enough of an anecdote for you?

How many people do I know that have been injured or died cycling? Is that a serious farking question Mik?
We are on a cycling forum, of course these type of situations will be reported. We are not on a pedestrian walking forum so we don't see any figures of peds getting hurt. But I think if you look you will find that there are a lot of poor souls out there who have been injured or died.

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course they are. However, I very much doubt the same parents would put a helmet on their child in the park, or when they were learning to walk or when they walk along the top of a wall that's a couple of foot off the ground for the small amount of protection they give. Even if you ignore or are unaware of the relative risks involved in cycling surely it's obvious that the chances of a child falling from a bike with stabilisers whilst travelling at walking speed is extraordinarily low compared to other normal childhood activities. @Cunobelin has mentioned the Thudguard, @Cunobelin likes the Thudguard.
Kids do love dressing up.

The Thudguard is an impressive model for showing hypocrisy and the holes in the pro- compulsion argument

It has all the arguments from endorsement by doctors, emotive blackmail, this thudguard saved my child's life etc etc

Yet whilst we are suposed to bow before such wisdom and immediately don a helmet, the same information and evidence becomes silly, irelevant and not worth while considering when it comes to th Thudguard

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Stairs? Me for one. Except I don't go bleating about it on the internet. The street? My wife last march. Once again I don't feel the need to blab about it on the internet or to tell her to wear a helmet for her own safety. Is that enough of an anecdote for you?

How many people do I know that have been injured or died cycling? Is that a serious ****ing question Mik?
We are on a cycling forum, of course these type of situations will be reported. We are not on a pedestrian walking forum so we don't see any figures of peds getting hurt. But I think if you look you will find that there are a lot of poor souls out there who have been injured or died.

Yeah, sorry for the bluntness of the question but it's kind of hit the point. I'm not on any hiking forums, but I don't think they'd have a need for a section dedicated to hikers who got injured on the trail. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there anyone who knows. I am on other forums, they don't have a need for it either, but then they are sedentary activities (ironically the only fatality reported on that list is from a guy having a heart attack while cycling to work).

It may just be a trigger thing for me, as mentioned a lot, I come from motorbikes and have seen the same debate 'well, motorbiking isn't dangerous in itself, it's all the other people that drive in to us in cars and lorries that cause the injuries' so might be sensitive to it. Oddly there when the majority got old enough to have to answer the question 'will you let your kids ride motorbikes?' their viewpoint changed a bit. But the level of denial seemed the same. And yes, motorbikes aren't bicycles. I still know that.

As I've said a few times, I'm not saying 'helmets would solve this' while we're in a thread titled about helmets I think we've flowed around the topic quite a bit by page 15 (or, you know, page 1) all I'm having difficulty with is an apparent denial that cycling has its dangers. I'm probably just misreading it all and taking all of the comments out of context, but it has struck me over the last few months of being on Cycle Chat as being a common enough held view and I don't remember it just coming up in helmet debates.

Anyway I see little point in doggedly following this on here. I've probably hammered my point home far harder than it needed. I'll go and read about people asking which £1000 bike to buy on cyclescheme for a bit and see how long it takes for this to come up again in a debate and see if it pushes my buttons or not :-) . Thanks for the candid reply.