Non-helmet helmet? Or something like that.

[Profpointy]

Helmets don’t cause rotational injuries.

While I feel that helmet use should be a personal choice, the evidence is overwhelming that they provide protection. (Albeit, limited protection—a few millimetres of polystyrene is hardly a forcefield.)

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

 

[CentralCommuter]

What an odd comment to make. The OP should be free to say they will not be wearing a helmet and that's the end of it.

If you don’t mind me asking, are you married? For how long? Does it appear happy on the surface?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

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

Part of teh problem with the studies that I have seen is that they have often included all cycling injuries

when a helmet is totally irrelevant in a lot of injuries
such as being run right over by a lorry - and all that

so a helmet will never help with that

it should be studied based solely on head injuries
and even then possibly ignoring the ones such as an 18 ton lorry parking in it

but then you have to look at who is choosing which incident to choose

I still reckon that I would have been far worse off when I fell off a few years ago if I was not wearing a helmet

I thought my head just gently knocked the floor
but when I checked my helmet a few weeks later then there was a large section of the polystyrene that has been badly compressed

now that might have just given me a bruise
but it also might have cracked my skull

but it can never be proved either way

One think I did see was from a Head Surgeon who worked with a major A&E unit

and he said that the vast majority of cyclist he sees were NOT wearing helmets
and it is very very rare for him to see anyone who was


neither point being actual evidence either way

 

[Rusty Nails]

but I wouldn’t force my wife to do something she doesn’t want to do

Please explain where the "force" comes in to this. A little bit OTT. You clearly haven't read his follow-up post. He appears to respect her worries about his safety more than his wanting to wear a helmet.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Please explain where the "force" comes in to this. A little bit OTT. You clearly haven't read his follow-up post. He appears to respect her worries about his safety more than his wanting to wear a helmet.

Can't edit because of the silly delay before posting in this forum but should have written "not wanting to wear a helmet".

 

[lazybloke]

The point is that most people don't have to try. Holding your head up is practised to the point of instinctive, but that can obviously be defeated by strapping on enough extra weight where it makes most difference.

You seem to have a surprisingly weak neck. Maybe try some strengthening exercises!

 

[Seevio]

And upthread there was a reference to people driving 'battle cruisers'. I believe the modern parlance is w**kertanker.

I thought it was W**kpanzer, although I do like the phrase Karen Wagon.

Anyway, as you were.

 

[fossyant]

If you don’t mind me asking, are you married? For how long? Does it appear happy on the surface?

Might be getting bad ear-ache that a lid could stop.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If you don’t mind me asking, are you married? For how long? Does it appear happy on the surface?

Happily married over 20 years. Your replies are getting a bit weird and personal. If your partner wants you to wear a helmet, and you do not then they should respect your opinion. If they try and demand that you wear a helmet, then they are trying to control you.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

 

[tinywheels]

The helmet debate seems to be like the electric car debate. In that both parties attract rabid supporters who brook no deviation from the party line.
I used to ride motorcycles and still do on holidays abroad. The joy of going lid free on a Greek island is delightful. Damn dangerous, but i do it nonetheless. Just do what you want, it's your head.

 

[Happy_Days]

if you actually read the papers.

I read the papers with a professional eye, as analysing the evidence was my postgraduate specialism.

I’m bowing out of this thread.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The helmet debate seems to be like the electric car debate. In that both parties attract rabid supporters who brook no deviation from the party line.
I used to ride motorcycles and still do on holidays abroad. The joy of going lid free on a Greek island is delightful. Damn dangerous, but i do it nonetheless. Just do what you want, it's your head.

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

 

[classic33]

Or maybe your neck would have held your head up without the extra weight as far from the neck as can be (force on a pivot is proportional to weight times distance, more or less, IIRC). Unless we fire a stack of crash test dummies through a similar crash, it's really quite dodgy to use this as a justification for helmet use.

And the standards aren't as strict about the sides of the helmet, so another brand or even model of helmet might have withstood less than yours. Congratulations on your choice.

Where exactly is the "pivot point"* in a human neck please?

*Singular, as you're saying there's only one. Or just posting something not relevant to back up your side.

 

[CentralCommuter]

Happily married over 20 years. Your replies are getting a bit weird and personal. If your partner wants you to wear a helmet, and you do not then they should respect your opinion. If they try and demand that you wear a helmet, then they are trying to control you.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

The bit about it being weird and personal😂 Now that is an odd comment to make!

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.

If something really worried my wife, and to alleviate the worry all I had to do was wear a helmet when I was cycling, I genuinely can think of no reason why I would not do that for her.

I’d say if I made her worry by not wearing a helmet just because I felt they were unnecessary then that would not make me a very respectful, considerate or loving husband, or person.

Please do point out the error in my thinking.

 

[rogerzilla]

I thought it was W**kpanzer, although I do like the phrase Karen Wagon.

Anyway, as you were.

Wilmslow panzer.