Views changed by online helmet discussion?

[benb]

I used to wear one, and assumed like many others that they simply must be of some benefit. Since reading these discussions, and reading the evidence, I have been convinced that they are not effective at reducing serious head injuries, and now I hardly ever wear one.

But then I've always been happy to change my mind when confronted with robust evidence that contradicts my previous opinion.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I have 2 questions:

1. Has anyone come into these threads holding one view and left them holding another?

2. Would anyone now be dead had they not read these threads?

The second question is silly, but the first is by no means rhetorical. There may be people out there who have changed their views as a result of these threads.

YES
I was a helmet wearer since 1982 when the first hard-shell types appeared.
I discovered the debates here and elsewhere.
I have not worn a helmet for over a year now.

I am free.

 

[sunnyjim]

1. No
2. No, but by the time I'm dead, I'll have had a shorter useful life because of reading these threads.

They did however prompt me to actually read EN1078.

What's not always realised is that under 'Section 4 : Requirements' only a single short paragraph specifies shock absorbing capacity. The other 5 paragraphs are all related to preventing the helmet from causing injury by restricting vision, sharp edges, and (with almost half the total requirements section text) injury caused by the retention system straps & buckles.

Much of the remainder of the document is concerned with marking, including the requirement for the manufacturer to clearly state that it cannot always protect against injury.

Similarly, the testing section is roughly split evenly between shock absorbtion and retention system testing.

So certification to the standard is at least as much a claim that the helmet will not cause an injury as that it may prevent one.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

1. No
2. No, but by the time I'm dead, I'll have had a shorter useful life because of reading these threads.

They did however prompt me to actually read EN1078.

What's not always realised is that under 'Section 4 : Requirements' only a single short paragraph specifies shock absorbing capacity. The other 5 paragraphs are all related to preventing the helmet from causing injury by restricting vision, sharp edges, and (with almost half the total requirements section text) injury caused by the retention system straps & buckles.

Much of the remainder of the document is concerned with marking, including the requirement for the manufacturer to clearly state that it cannot always protect against injury.

Similarly, the testing section is roughly split evenly between shock absorbtion and retention system testing.

So certification to the standard is at least as much a claim that the helmet will not cause an injury as that it may prevent one.

That was my understanding of the document as well. Apparently the body of evidence that is being put forward suggests that helmets fail to meet the standards they are awarded. It does make one wonder why no law suits have been brought against either manufacturers or the EU standards commission[sup]?[/sup]

 

[Norm]

I used to wear one, and assumed like many others that they simply must be of some benefit. Since reading these discussions, and reading the evidence, I have been convinced that they are not effective at reducing serious head injuries, and now I hardly ever wear one.

But then I've always been happy to change my mind when confronted with robust evidence that contradicts my previous opinion.

I think this covers my position as well. Although it's possible that the mushrooms were more protective than the current offerings, I now wear mine when riding off road but seldom when I (plan to) stay on the tarmac.

 

[_aD]

1. Has anyone come into these threads holding one view and left them holding another?

I tried to read one with the view that "People waste a lot of time banging on about stuff on the Internet".

After one page I left with the view that "People waste an unhealthy amount of time banging on about stuff on the Internet, and need to learn to shut up.

2. Would anyone now be dead had they not read these threads?

I would have died if I spent any longer reading them...

 

[ufkacbln]

1. no
2. dont know


to add, ive altered my views because of these threads but still maintain my original belief that a helmet is of value
id rather trust standards and people whos job is to provide safety than a couple of persistent strangers on a forum when making an 'informed choice'

I would find it more worrying if people ignoered safety standards and advice and used strangers on a forum to make a decision. I make my own

That s a little confusing



However I do agree about advice from strangers, and advice from professionals... However that is called "research" and "evidence"

You have clearly stated on a number of occasions that you don't "do evidence" and believe totally in faith, yet now you want to trust standards and professionals whose well you refuse to research and hold in low esteem

What if someone from personal experience that full face cycle helmets were not needed as normal helmets were wide enough to prevent facial injuries.
.

Would you believe them or someone who posted evidence from a professional body such as the British Dental Association who clearly stated that they don't?

 

[david k]

That s a little confusing




You have clearly stated on a number of occasions that you don't "do evidence" and believe totally in faith

Impossible to reason with a person who continually misrepresents somebody elses views to meet their own agenda (a well known troll technique), well thats the political response, mine is much simpler, you are a liar

 

[Davidc]

I've ridden for the past 50 years. Half that time there weren't helmets.

I wear one in winter to keep my head warm, and in summer sometimes to keep the peace at home. They make me sweaty and I've nearly passd out a couple of times because of the extra heat.

If they'd been around in the early 1970s and I'd worn one I'm reasonably sure I'd have been killed instead of having a grazed ear and (opposite) cheek. I can't prove that any more than the opposite view proponents can prove their anecdotes. I don't usually go that fast now anyway!

Helmet debates haven't changed my view at all. What may do is seeing the rounded (no pointy bits) helmets used by the people at the skateboard/BMX facility near me. Those would be less likely to catch on surfaces and twist my head off, and don't stick out as far so less likely to cause impact where otherwise there would be none. Still likely to be hot though.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Impossible to reason with a person who continually misrepresents somebody elses views to meet their own agenda (a well known troll technique), well thats the political response, mine is much simpler, you are a liar

Are you sure you mean that? You do have a previous instance of denying your own text in very short order!

 

[benb]

Impossible to reason with a person who continually misrepresents somebody elses views to meet their own agenda (a well known troll technique), well thats the political response, mine is much simpler, you are a liar

That's out of order.

 

[david k]

That's out of order.

it would be if it wasnt true, however ive attempted to reason and requested respect in return, but despite these reasonable requests my views are continually misrepresented and also told to MTFU. If you dont like the tone of the reply then dont tell lies about me. Then i would have no reason to respond that way.


Funny how people have lied about me, swore at me and said they will ridicule me and when i say dont tell lies about me theres people willing to claim its out of order! if i was speaking that way to people who think helmets are beneficial would you think its out of order or just is it just are your like minded people?

 

[david k]

Are you sure you mean that? You do have a previous instance of denying your own text in very short order!

no, that was your claim and yet another false one

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

it would be if it wasnt true, however ive attempted to reason and requested respect in return, but despite these reasonable requests my views are continually misrepresented and also told to MTFU. If you dont like the tone of the reply then dont tell lies about me. Then i would have no reason to respond that way.


Funny how people have lied about me, swore at me and said they will ridicule me and when i say dont tell lies about me theres people willing to claim its out of order! if i was speaking that way to people who think helmets are beneficial would you think its out of order or just is it just are your like minded people?

You don't really want to start on that track. It's no one's fault but your own that you don't understand statistics, physics ,scientific principles or even how to read your own text before hitting send. You insist on making a fool of yourself and doing it over and over again, then whinge because people think you a fool.

 

[Bicycle]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I started this thread with two things on my mind:

1. To see if anyone had been genuinely swayed. I was surprised by the candour of some responses. Thank you.

2. To see how long it would take some members of the online community to start being offensive to one another.

Ummm... Thanks for the help with that too.... I think....