The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[DaveReading]

I have to say that I can't remember seeing this.

Plenty of examples in the main helmet thread.

The giveaway is the term "anecdotal", which gets applied to accounts of incidents where a wearer reckons a helmet lessened or avoided injury, whereas reports of a helmet making no difference constitute "evidence".

I'm firmly pro-choice, but I'd like to see a balanced debate that doesn't resort to disingenuousness on either side.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
I'm firmly pro-choice, but I'd like to see a balanced debate that doesn't resort to disingenuousness on either side.

isn't that what we're having?

 

[Mugshot]

Plenty of examples in the main helmet thread.

The giveaway is the term "anecdotal", which gets applied to accounts of incidents where a wearer reckons a helmet lessened or avoided injury, whereas reports of a helmet making no difference constitute "evidence".

I'm firmly pro-choice, but I'd like to see a balanced debate that doesn't resort to disingenuousness on either side.

I think you may be getting the wrong end of the stick, the use of TMNs bobble hat saving her life, for example, is presented as "evidence" in response to a poster presenting evidence that they bumped their head therefore the helmet saved their life, the fact that they are not dead and the helmet was scraped being the evidence. Individual experiences should be classed as anecdotal which ever side of the argument they come from, far more useful is looking at information which can be gained from far larger population studies, Australia for one.

 

[bianchi1]

No, the argument was the rest of the post that was cut nastily... and even the quoted part is summarised badly: I say that crash helmets might work if you crash, not that they definitely will!

But of course it would be far better if cyclists crashed even less... and of course we can achieve that, such as by improving road design through sustainable safety or Vision Zero or similar and not putting obvious crash hazards in the way of cyclists. It may even be that cyclists would crash less if fewer wore crash helmets, but that needs further investigation.

The bigger problem with crash helmets is they're dealing with a small fraction of an already-unlikely event... truly obsessing about what to do about one toenail of the elephant in the room... which is that lots of people won't ride no matter how much safety gear you try to persuade them to wear, because they don't have good streets to ride on, they don't know the routes (which are often ill-signed) or they don't know how fast and practical it can be. Crash helmets don't make the streets nicer, don't help you to find the routes and even make cycling slower and less practical faffing about with special hats.

Cutting parts of statements, leaving out important bits is something I learnt from everyone's favourite anti helmet site BHRF!

 

[ufkacbln]

That may well be true.

It's also a shame that some of the pro-choice lobby seem determined to deny that just occasionally, under certain circumstances, a helmet might have prevented an injury (or a worse one).

It's as if the overwhelming evidence that helmets don't make cycling safer overall isn't enough to outweigh the occasional inconvenient exception to that.

Many of us in fact argue for greater helmet use and far higher standards for helmets.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I suffered injury that was made worse by helmet use, and that was a much more robust motorcycle helmet. I'd have been less injured if no helmet was involved.

Mind you, I'm not sure it counts because he'd taken it off his head before he hit me with it.

 

[classic33]

http://cycle.org.au/index.php/rambles/the-big-issues/201-common-fallacies-in-support-of-mhl

"Most people familiar with the topic of bicycle helmet laws knows what a stir it creates. But the same people, on either side of the argument, would also know about the common fallacies that gets brought up when discussing the topic. And the same ones comes up again and again. People advocating for helmet freedom have heard them all and have explained them again and again. And at the same time, people defending helmet laws, certainly don’t want these fallacies to be mixed up with concrete arguments.

There are scientific studies available, both for and against. If you really serious about getting involved in the conversation, do a bit of research - there is plenty of good material out there and there is no need to fall for the logic traps.

Although I wrote this piece from a mandatory bicycle helmet laws (MHL) repeal point of of view, it’s primary purpose is not to convince anyone that MHL’s should be repealed and it also doesn’t focus on evidence for repeal. Instead its purpose is to point out the numerous fallacies brought up when talking about MHL’s. It is also not aimed at addressing all the arguments against the repeal of helmets, but only concentrates on the most often mentioned fallacies and flawed arguments.

Once these fallacies are put aside, a real debate can happen."

 

[blackgoff]

Ive been involved in a few discussions about helmets in my time and ive had pretty much the same reaction here...

PERSONALLY FOR MYSELF - id rather have a helmet 'fail' in the microseconds on an impact, as i have, rather than my head FAIL totally: and that makes sense for my wellbeing and for pretty all the people i know who wear a helmet which is everyone but those here who dont appear to have the intelligence to wear one. I make that arrowed point as quite a few have angled a few towards myself.

 

[Profpointy]

Ive been involved in a few discussions about helmets in my time and ive had pretty much the same reaction here...

PERSONALLY FOR MYSELF - id rather have a helmet 'fail' in the microseconds on an impact, as i have, rather than my head FAIL totally: and that makes sense for my wellbeing and for pretty all the people i know who wear a helmet which is everyone but those here who dont appear to have the intelligence to wear one. I make that arrowed point as quite a few have angled a few towards myself.

well this thread was going so well up to now.... but I'll respond on two points.

1) have you any thoughts on why they appear not to help, on average, in places where compulsion has been introduced - Australia and Ontario?

2) why are those who have changed their view after looking at evidence stupid? Surely that would be a sensible approach on any other subject

 

[blackgoff]

You are entitled to your opinion, and your freedom to wear a helmet. So why do you resort to insulting people who choose not to? This always happens.

Where's the insults ?

I've NOT levelled any, NAMED anybody.

In 2 instances I've explained MY viewpoint.

Many above who don't appear to want to wear a helmet, I wonder how many hours a week they ride ?? - I do about 15rs a week.

A helmet serves ME well. What anybody else DOES I don't care, that's their CHOICE !

I don't choose intellectual argument when beginning a ride, i/me, choose safety and protection !

 

[ufkacbln]

Ive been involved in a few discussions about helmets in my time and ive had pretty much the same reaction here...

PERSONALLY FOR MYSELF - id rather have a helmet 'fail' in the microseconds on an impact, as i have, rather than my head FAIL totally: and that makes sense for my wellbeing and for pretty all the people i know who wear a helmet which is everyone but those here who dont appear to have the intelligence to wear one. I make that arrowed point as quite a few have angled a few towards myself.

So we can conclude then that:

Pedestrians who suffer from head injuries also lack the intelligence to wear one?
Vehicle occupants who suffer from head injuries also lack the intelligence to wear one?

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't choose intellectual argument when beginning a ride, i/me, choose safety and protection !

 

[totallyfixed]

Ive been involved in a few discussions about helmets in my time and ive had pretty much the same reaction here...

PERSONALLY FOR MYSELF - id rather have a helmet 'fail' in the microseconds on an impact, as i have, rather than my head FAIL totally: and that makes sense for my wellbeing and for pretty all the people i know who wear a helmet which is everyone but those here who dont appear to have the intelligence to wear one. I make that arrowed point as quite a few have angled a few towards myself.

You wrote this and I take exception to it. You say you do 15hrs a week, how is this relevant? Perhaps you could explain to this dimwit why it is that those who wear helmets are the ones hitting their heads. Words of one syllable please.

 

[martint235]

Where's the insults ?

I've NOT levelled any, NAMED anybody.

In 2 instances I've explained MY viewpoint.

Many above who don't appear to want to wear a helmet, I wonder how many hours a week they ride ?? - I do about 15rs a week.

A helmet serves ME well. What anybody else DOES I don't care, that's their CHOICE !

I don't choose intellectual argument when beginning a ride, i/me, choose safety and protection !

You're going to start putting some serious hours in soon though aren't you? I've done single rides longer than that and without a helmet. And without crashing. And without my bike melting in the rain.

The evidence question still remains though. How do you know that your helmet will stop your head from failing? There's no scientific evidence out there, it's the modern equivalent of snake oil.

 

[classic33]

Where's the insults ?

I've NOT levelled any, NAMED anybody.

In 2 instances I've explained MY viewpoint.

Many above who don't appear to want to wear a helmet, I wonder how many hours a week they ride ?? - I do about 15rs a week.

A helmet serves ME well. What anybody else DOES I don't care, that's their CHOICE !

I don't choose intellectual argument when beginning a ride, i/me, choose safety and protection !

Used to do that on a weekend.