Is there a stigma to only wear a cap?

[boydj]

Safety helmets are compulsory for Tour de France riders, I don't know if they are generally required in any particular countries. (If anyone does know please let us know).
............................................................................
Some say it should be the individuals choice whether to helmet up, buckle up etc. My answer to that is if you do suffer avoidable injury it is the the NHS paid for by us, the taxpayers, who will pick up the bill.

Roger.

Australia has a mandatory helmets rule - to the detriment of the numbers cycling regularly.

I can see the sense of helmets in a risky environment - e.g. mountain biking / off-road cycling / road racing / riding in a fast bunch. For general road riding, there's no evidence to show that a helmet makes you any safer.

My risk assessment :
1. helmets make your head bigger and heavier and therefore more likely to make your head hit the road and hit it harder if you come off.
2. a helmet can't stop your brain moving about inside your skull in the event of a hard knock so is unlikely to prevent a concussion.
3. your skull is your very own mips protector, custom designed to protect your brain, with a slippy outer cover (hair, skin and blood)
4. countries with the highest rate of helmet usage have the highest level of head injuries - USA, UK.
5. countries with the lowest rate of helmet usage also have the lowest rate of head injuries - Netherlands, Denmark
6. research has shown that drivers are less careful around cyclists if the cyclist is wearing a helmet.

I have had to go to hospital after coming off on my commute - for broken bones in both hands. But I pay my taxes and cycling keeps me very healthy, so I don't feel guilty about using the NHS as a result of cycling.

By all means wear a helmet if it makes you more comfortable, but recognise that it's effectiveness is limited.

 

[Brads]

Never mind the cap, look at the gloves !!
Why would you put a helmet over a cap like that ?

 

[Drago]

View attachment 527415

Never mind the cap, look at the gloves !!
Why would you put a helmet over a cap like that ?

You are Chuck Norris AICMFP!

 

[Supersuperleeds]

All the cool riders in my cycling circle wear a cap.

 

[Brads]

haha Well earned fiver there mate.

 

[mjr]

Then ask yourself what MIPS is supposed to be for if cycle helmets were so safe.

Trademark licensing revenue generation?

 

[faster]

Then why are some motorcycle helmet manufacturers not afraid to make such claims?

I'm not aware that they do. I'm not really involved in motorcycling nowadays, but I don't really remember anyone trying to sell anything based on how safe it was - mostly just on looks and how 'cool' stuff is. Admittedly, my experience is from the off-road side. Maybe it's different for road bikes.

Google it like everyone else has to when researching a topic to make up their own mind, instead of gullibly accepting prevailing "wisdom". Then ask yourself what MIPS is supposed to be for if cycle helmets were so safe.

I have Googled it, but it's very difficult to find anything that is in any way compelling in amongst the poor journalism and badly interpreted statistics. For a good example of badly interpreted statistics, see points 4 and 5 in boydj's post a few above this one. I'm sure I don't have to explain what is wrong with these points, so I won't. It should be obvious.

You seem to be convinced. Just thought you might know of something a cut above most of the anti-helmet drivel that it out there.

Then ask yourself what MIPS is supposed to be for if cycle helmets were so safe.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It seems as if you are trying to argue that just because research into helmet safety is ongoing and that improvements are being made, this means that all pre-MIPS helmets are unsafe.

It's like someone trying to argue that a horse is no quicker than walking then trying to win the argument by saying, "Then ask yourself what cars are supposed to be for if horses were so fast".

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth here, but that's how it reads.

 

[boydj]

I'm not aware that they do. I'm not really involved in motorcycling nowadays, but I don't really remember anyone trying to sell anything based on how safe it was - mostly just on looks and how 'cool' stuff is. Admittedly, my experience is from the off-road side. Maybe it's different for road bikes.



I have Googled it, but it's very difficult to find anything that is in any way compelling in amongst the poor journalism and badly interpreted statistics. For a good example of badly interpreted statistics, see points 4 and 5 in boydj's post a few above this one. I'm sure I don't have to explain what is wrong with these points, so I won't. It should be obvious.

You seem to be convinced. Just thought you might know of something a cut above most of the anti-helmet drivel that it out there.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It seems as if you are trying to argue that just because research into helmet safety is ongoing and that improvements are being made, this means that all pre-MIPS helmets are unsafe.

It's like someone trying to argue that a horse is no quicker than walking then trying to win the argument by saying, "Then ask yourself what cars are supposed to be for if horses were so fast".

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth here, but that's how it reads.

I must be a bit slow - perhaps you could tell me where I have gone wrong. Or is it not the case that the rate of incidence of head injuries for cyclists in The Netherlands is significantly lower than it is in the UK for both the number of cyclists and the number of miles cycled?

Perhaps I should have added to my risk assessment that the risk of me coming off is low, the risk of hitting my head is even lower, and the risk of hitting my head hard enough to do any severe damage is very low.

 

[Fab Foodie]

View attachment 527415

Never mind the cap, look at the gloves !!
Why would you put a helmet over a cap like that ?

Feck! You’ve got cool globes aa well....

 

[Drago]

You've answered your own question. MIPS is intended to mitigate a serious type of injury that is actually caused by the wearing of a cycle helmet in the first place.

Technology and research does move forward. Nevertheless, you were championing the efficacy of helmets before MIPS came along, and despite MIPS not having been proven to translate you a casualty reduction to mention it as a piece of advancing helmet technology.

It's like swallowing spiders to catch the fly. That didn't end well either.

 

[Brads]

Feck! You’ve got cool globes aa well....

Please tell me that "Gloves as"

 

[faster]

I must be a bit slow - perhaps you could tell me where I have gone wrong. Or is it not the case that the rate of incidence of head injuries for cyclists in The Netherlands is significantly lower than it is in the UK for both the number of cyclists and the number of miles cycled?

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there. I certainly never said you were a bit slow. It's human nature to attempt to see patterns and draw conclusions where there are non to be drawn, particularly when they justify your own choices and reinforce your own prejudices.

Whilst the statistics themselves may well be correct, comparing head injuries in the UK/USA vs Netherlands/Denmark tells us very little about the efficacy of cycle helmets - there are just too many factors at play. You could easily argue that these are the worst countries to compare, them being at completely opposite ends of the cycling spectrum.

The cycling culture is completely different - much of UK/USA cycling is for sport/fitness purposes and done by inexperienced occasional cyclists, whilst in the Netherlands/Denmark most of it is for utility purposes by cyclists for whom the bike is their main form of transport - literally carrying out many trips per day from childhood for most of their lives.

Netherlands/Denmark have world class cycling infrastructure and town/city planning have been bike friendly for decades. The less said about our cycling infrastructure the better.

The stats themselves will be questionable - comparisons between countries are notoriously difficult. The definition of a head injury in Netherlands/Denmark is unlikely to be the same as in UK/USA. If you've been reading the news lately, many have commented that comparing Covid death stats between countries is tricky, as they are classified in different ways.

Are their head injury stats lower due to these things, or is it because they don't wear helmets? The truth is nobody knows, but it is irresponsible to present these stats as an argument against cycle helmet use.

You're not slow, but you may well have been misled.

Perhaps I should have added to my risk assessment that the risk of me coming off is low, the risk of hitting my head is even lower, and the risk of hitting my head hard enough to do any severe damage is very low.

This is a perfectly good reason not to wear a helmet and impossible to argue with, as long as you appreciate that the risk would almost certainly be reduced further by wearing a helmet.

2. a helmet can't stop your brain moving about inside your skull in the event of a hard knock so is unlikely to prevent a concussion.

On the contrary. That's exactly how helmets work.

 

[faster]

You've answered your own question. MIPS is intended to mitigate a serious type of injury that is actually caused by the wearing of a cycle helmet in the first place.

Which question?

These injuries caused by helmets - I can well believe that some injuries are actually caused by wearing of a cycle helmet, but how prevalent are these? Are helmets causing injuries in most crashes, or is this situation extremely rare?

Technology and research does move forward. Nevertheless, you were championing the efficacy of helmets before MIPS came along, and despite MIPS not having been proven to translate you a casualty reduction to mention it as a piece of advancing helmet technology.

It's like swallowing spiders to catch the fly. That didn't end well either.

I've read this a few times now and have no idea what you are trying to say.

Sorry.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Please tell me that "Gloves as"

YES!!! Couldn’t edit!!

 

[Fab Foodie]

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there. I certainly never said you were a bit slow. It's human nature to attempt to see patterns and draw conclusions where there are non to be drawn, particularly when they justify your own choices and reinforce your own prejudices.

Whilst the statistics themselves may well be correct, comparing head injuries in the UK/USA vs Netherlands/Denmark tells us very little about the efficacy of cycle helmets - there are just too many factors at play. You could easily argue that these are the worst countries to compare, them being at completely opposite ends of the cycling spectrum.

The cycling culture is completely different - much of UK/USA cycling is for sport/fitness purposes and done by inexperienced occasional cyclists, whilst in the Netherlands/Denmark most of it is for utility purposes by cyclists for whom the bike is their main form of transport - literally carrying out many trips per day from childhood for most of their lives.

Netherlands/Denmark have world class cycling infrastructure and town/city planning have been bike friendly for decades. The less said about our cycling infrastructure the better.

The stats themselves will be questionable - comparisons between countries are notoriously difficult. The definition of a head injury in Netherlands/Denmark is unlikely to be the same as in UK/USA. If you've been reading the news lately, many have commented that comparing Covid death stats between countries is tricky, as they are classified in different ways.

Are their head injury stats lower due to these things, or is it because they don't wear helmets? The truth is nobody knows, but it is irresponsible to present these stats as an argument against cycle helmet use.

You're not slow, but you may well have been misled.



This is a perfectly good reason not to wear a helmet and impossible to argue with, as long as you appreciate that the risk would almost certainly be reduced further by wearing a helmet.



On the contrary. That's exactly how helmets work.

Your last 2 statements are wrong.