The Helmet Debate

[Mad at urage]

I have had more than one incident after which, had I been wearing a helmet, the health-care professionals who treated me would have said 'Your helmet saved your life'.

Ditto

 

[Mad at urage]

Me @ 30mph (according to the lorry following me) a mini doing at least 30 mph (according to the police analysis of the skid marks) turning right through me (in front of the lorry). Head gets first impact on mini (wrecking my Bolles). If I had been wearing a helmet it might have caught on the windscreen wipers (which gouged the Bolles) and broken my neck.

Proof positive that helmets are lethal

 

[ComedyPilot]

For me, helmet use has always been about choice, risk assessment and informed decision making.

If I were ever to cycle in a large group of sweaty men, all hell-bent on getting over the line first (and all the argy-bargy that entails), a helmet would be worn.

If I spawned an urge to throw myself down an alpine run with total disregard for my safety just to cover a set distance before somone else, a helmet would be worn.

If I got an urge to throw myself repeatedly off a man-made ramp and do 'sick' tricks on a child's bike (whilst displaying my Y fronts for all and sundry), a helmet would be worn.

If I were hell bent on riding to work head-down, as fast as my lungs and legs would let me, and have a reduced abitlity (or awareness) to react to constantly changing traffic situations around me, a helmet would be worn.

If I were to ride at a reasonable pace (sustainable all day), take care on roads and watch out for others, cover my brakes on downhills and reduce speed in the wet, be able to take in the environment around me (birds singing, workmen whistling) then the LAST thing I want to do is encase my head in a lump of polystyrene (recently recycled from plasma TV packaging).


When I ride I always give myself an 'out' - so when a situation arises I have somewhere to go. I use a mirror, so am aware of traffic coming behind from a good way off. I use good quality lights to make myself visible, and I ride defensively - just because I have priority, and have lights does not mean that car pulling out on the left has seen me. Make eye contact, and if in doubt deploy anchors and steer away. Being in a hospital bed and being in the right doesn't seem like reasonable logic to me.

The few near-miss incidents I have had on the road would not have been helped by me wearing a helmet. A car hitting me head-on at 60 is hardly likely to result in me dusting myself down (from all the polystyrene chippings?) and singing the praises of the now tattered helmet.

I am a rural recreational/touring/commuting cyclist, and will not be moulded into a nanny-state helmet-wearing clone.

Sorry.

 

[Red Light]

Rubbish is all i will say to this preposeterous statement.

There are many incidences of people suffering just the one fatal injury and no other injuries at all.

My head would have been the first point of impact with the road had I not been wearing the helmet.

I appreciate the overall arguement but in my case i can say that the helmet saved me from an extremely dangerous accident that could have been life altering, but with luck i was able to stand up and stagger away from it.

An anecdote is not data and unless you are prepared to repeat the accident identically but without the helmet then every thing you say is speculation.

As for preposterous rubbish, which bit do you dispute and apart from your meaningless anecdote, what is your evidence? The studies that have looked into causes of death have found that multiple fatal injuries are the overwhelming cause of cyclist deaths and head injuries alone are very much in the minority. So where is your evidence to the contrary?

Or are you just making up your preposterous rubbish?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[lukesdad]

Me @ 30mph (according to the lorry following me) a mini doing at least 30 mph (according to the police analysis of the skid marks) turning right through me (in front of the lorry). Head gets first impact on mini (wrecking my Bolles). If I had been wearing a helmet it might have caught on the windscreen wipers (which gouged the Bolles) and broken my neck.

Proof positive that helmets are lethal

..and how do you prove something that didn t happen exactly ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Am I right in my analysis of the anecdotal posts?

1. If one were to slip and fall then a head injury would be prevented if a helmet was worn?

2. As there is a possibility of the helmet reducing the injury then not wearing one is foolish?

 

[lukesdad]

Am I right in my analysis of the anecdotal posts?

1. If one were to slip and fall then a head injury would be prevented if a helmet was worn?

2. As there is a possibility of the helmet reducing the injury then not wearing one is foolish?

That depends on the likelyhood of falling, but im ready to run with it go on....

 

[Nantmor]

I once fell off and my head hit the road. Luckily I was wearing a cotton cap, so only a small bruise resulted. Consequently I urge all cyclists to wear a cotton cap.

 

[ufkacbln]

That depends on the likelyhood of falling, but im ready to run with it go on....

How do you decide when the risk is great enough to wear a helmet?

 

[lukesdad]

How do you decide when the risk is great enough to wear a helmet?

Well that is the question isn t it ?

 

[ComedyPilot]

That is the crux of the issue for me.

We have a media, a nanny-state govt and a sheep-like public who believe the sh*t they're fed telling us to be clones and wear Bob the Builder regalia when riding a bike - and personal choice, responsibility and risk assessment are taken out of our hands.

 

[lukesdad]

It is the crux. On the road unless racing low risk, XC riding higher risk, Downhilling you d be mad not to.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Pretty much my take on it too.

On road/commuting/touring low risk.

Racing on road higher risk, as in some XC, and balls out DH and BMX stunting you'd have to be madder than Mad Jack McMad not to take some PPE measures - but again I am pro-choice for them to do as they please.

 

[Nantmor]

It is the crux. On the road unless racing low risk, XC riding higher risk, Downhilling you d be mad not to.

For sure it is the crux. I believe that the point is that any "safety" benefit can be consumed as a performance benefit. At any given level of risk a downhiller might tolerate, a foam hat allows a faster speed. After all, if its safety he is after he could go slower. With a helmet the margin of risk can be kept constant, but speed increased. Just as a climber dons a helmet to traverse a couloir with stone fall, the hat is used to extend performance, not increase safety.
One can also choose to take more care, ride slower etc. in order to widen the risk margin. These sorts of decisions are the individual's prerogative, unless by increasing performance he endangers others more. I suggest seat belts are an example of the last.
When helmets are forced on cyclists, who hardly endanger others at all, we should ask, who benefits? Who consumes the safety benefit? If helmets are an alternative to actually reducing real danger, if they are imposed by motorists, in order to make themselves feel better about their careless driving then compulsion is immoral.
Here is an anecdote to make myself clearer. I have read that the Davey Lamp, which was introduced into mines as a great aid to the safety of miners, actually increased explosions. A seam full of firedamp, (methane) could not be worked with naked flames. When miners could be coerced into those seams with a Davey Lamp, the odd explosion still happened. If a pick hit a stone then the lamp did not matter. The safety benefit had been consumed as a performance benefit by the people with power.
Any safety benefit the cycle helmet has is consumed by people with power.

 

[lukesdad]

Im not sure motorists give a gypsies whether a cyclist wears a helmet or not. The davey lamp anology has no relevance in this instance really does it, we ve moved on. The question here is risk, and the risk is falling and type of fall. I think are we all agreed its a personal choice, and your statement about people in power is just scaremongering. Cyclists are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If the arguement is against compulsion....then spit it out man! Then we can have a debate, though it would be a very one sided one I agree. I cant agree though, that casting doubt on the safety of any protective item, is the way to go about it.