Non-helmet helmet? Or something like that.

[Ming the Merciless]

Please explain where the "force" comes in to this. A little bit OTT. You clearly haven't read his follow-up post.

The OP has not been back to this thread with a follow up post. Maybe they were trolling the helmet debate.

Thing is, my wife will go bananas if she sees me setting off without one. She doesn't cycle and has no interest at all in hearing the various arguments

(my bold)

This is a bit I see as using force, not all force is physical, and this very much looks like what I’d call controlling behaviour.

All the OP wants to do is decide for themselves when to wear a helmet. They want quite reasonably not to wear the helmet they own when out on a short trip, such as to the doctors. This should not result in their partner going bananas and refusing to discuss it.

Let me paint a scenario, a woman wants to have a night out with her colleagues from work. Some of these colleagues are male. No partners have been invited or will be present. It’s a work do. Her husband goes bananas, tells her she can’t go, and refuses to discuss it with her. Is this reasonable behaviour?

 

[Poacher]

That is flat out false: the evidence is not overwhelming or even there at all if you actually read the papers.

The oft quoted claims of 90% (or whatever it is) reduction in head injuries is from the discredited Rivera Thompson Rivera paper which even (one or more of) the original authors have retracted. Put rather flippantly it had (inadvertently) compared head injuries of helmeted children riding in parks or leafy suburbs vs inner city bare headed kids riding on busy roads. Not surprisingly it also "proved" that helmets reduced lower leg injuries even more than head injuries.

Conversely the papers covering actual head injury rates from Australia and Ontario where compulsion increased adoption rates from 10% to 90+% failed to show any improvement.

A couple or more recent and initially plausible papers I've read were also found wanting. One from Australia (quite sensibly) compared rates of head and non-head injuries then rather spoilt it by using different date ranges from the introduction of compulsion which looked awfully like cherry picking the data, then a UK one did something similar then casually mentioned lack of helmets was associated with drunk cycling without properly analysing. Increased injury rates due to drinking is hardly in doubt after all.

Anyhow, to say the evidence is overwhelming is not merely wrong but dishonest

I don't think there was anything inadvertent about Thompson Rivara and Thompson's statistical methodology; they were fundamentally dishonest. Weren't they sponsored by Bell helmets?

 

[Profpointy]

I don't think there was anything inadvertent about Thompson Rivara and Thompson's statistical methodology; they were fundamentally dishonest. Weren't they sponsored by Bell helmets?

I wasn't aware of the sponsorship, and assumed it was done in good faith albeit badly flawed. I understand one or more of the authors subsequently repudiated or at least acknowledged the flaws which I felt indicated honesty.

What was decidedly dishonest was the likes of RoSPA quoting the result long after it was known to be faulty.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I used to vape, and my wife didn’t want me to. So I stopped. I’d say that is respect, you’d say that is control.

Fundamentally different scenarios, and I wouldn't says yours is controlling behaviour based on what you have said.. You were knowingly doing something harmful to your self. You will have had a reasoned discussion with your partner, and you decided to stop. It would have also been reasonable for you to decide to continue, even if they were unhappy at that.

He is doing something fundamentally beneficial and reasonable, he decided to not wear his helmet on short local trips, such as to the doctor. Yet his partner goes apeshit and refuses to discuss it with him, when he does it.

It is this last point which hints at controlling behaviour, given what the OP wants to do.

 

[Milzy]

Known a few guys use lid on training rides but not for work rides. More chance of accident in the dark.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Known a few guys use lid on training rides but not for work rides. More chance of accident in the dark.

I would be more inclined to use a helmet on roads given the driving of some people

but tracks with bumps and mud/gravel would come soon after!

 

[matticus]

Indeed. The "helmet nazis" have infiltrated both sides.

That's an interesting way to describe wanting to make your own choice about PPE to wear on a simple bike ride.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That's an interesting way to describe wanting to make your own choice about PPE to wear on a simple bike ride.

Yes, Nazi is definitely an overused word these days.

None of my bike rides are simple and I only wear top grade PPE from Mone PPP Ltd.

 

[matticus]

None of my bike rides are simple and I only wear top grade PPE from Mone PPP Ltd.

I will always defend your right to wear such items!