More helmet debate - but this time sensible!

[Hugo a Gogo]

mikee boy said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

could go either way

I what way could compulsory helmets increase the number of hospital admissions due to head injuries?

over confidence? higher speeds? helmeted cyclists hitting unprotected pedestrians? who knows

but yeah, the cyclist element of those head injuries might well fall IF all current cyclists continued to ride the same amount and the same way but now with helmets, but what about all the others? (and cyclists account for only a tiny fraction of all head injuries)

[mikee boy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

over confidence? higher speeds? helmeted cyclists hitting unprotected pedestrians? who knows

but yeah, the cyclist element of those head injuries might well fall IF all current cyclists continued to ride the same amount and the same way but now with helmets, but what about all the others? (and cyclists account for only a tiny fraction of all head injuries)

I don't think anybody was suggesting a cyclist wearing a helmet would stop Mrs Miggins slipping on some ice while walking to bingo. I thought this was a debate about cyclists.

[Mr Will]

mikee boy said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

over confidence? higher speeds? helmeted cyclists hitting unprotected pedestrians? who knows

but yeah, the cyclist element of those head injuries might well fall IF all current cyclists continued to ride the same amount and the same way but now with helmets, but what about all the others? (and cyclists account for only a tiny fraction of all head injuries)

I don't think anybody was suggesting a cyclist wearing a helmet would stop Mrs Miggins slipping on some ice while walking to bingo. I thought this was a debate about cyclists.

Okay, but if you are going to make cyclists wear helmets then why shouldn't Mrs Miggins as well?

[heebeegeetee]

mikee boy said:

I don't think anybody was suggesting a cyclist wearing a helmet would stop Mrs Miggins slipping on some ice while walking to bingo. I thought this was a debate about cyclists.

But that then beggars the question "why cyclists?" because again, there's no clear picture as to why they should be picked out as a group.

In the past debate there was much mention of the safety features of the modern car, but leaving aside the fact that a good number of cars on the road are not bang up to date, head injuries are still prevalent amongst car occupants, so why shouldn't all road users wear helmets? After all, unlike with cycling the compulsory use of helmets amongst car occupants is harldly likely to result in a reduction of numbers of car users and even if it did, unlike with cycling that can only be seen as a good thing, surely?

Then there's the fact tht our roads are very safe, so why shouldn't everyone do a helmet the moment they get out of bed?

There is simply no or very, very little evidence that making cyclists wear helmets will achieve anything material at all in any way.

[mikee boy]

Mr Will said:

Okay, but if you are going to make cyclists wear helmets then why shouldn't Mrs Miggins as well?

I'm not going to make Mrs Miggins wear a helmet. I'm not an advocate for compulsory helmet wearing. I wear one, but I don't think that everybody else should have to.

[mikee boy]

Mr Will said:

If a compulsory helmet law increase the risk of an accident by more than a helmet provides protection against the consequences. It's not rocket surgery.

How might it do that?

[sugerbear]

mikee boy said:

Mr Will said:

If a compulsory helmet law increase the risk of an accident by more than a helmet provides protection against the consequences. It's not rocket surgery.

How might it do that?

Cyclists might be prepared to take more risks because they are wearing a helmet.

A bit like wearing a bullet proof vest at a gunfight.

[Mr Will]

mikee boy said:

Mr Will said:

If a compulsory helmet law increase the risk of an accident by more than a helmet provides protection against the consequences. It's not rocket surgery.

How might it do that?

One example - by reducing the number of cyclists. Less cyclists results in more risk to those who do still cycle (drivers less likely to be expecting/looking for cyclists) which more than outweighs the marginal increase in helmet wearing.

It's a pattern that has been seen pretty much everywhere that has introduced a mandatory helmet law - the risk to cyclists per mile goes up.

[mikee boy]

sugerbear said:

mikee boy said:

Mr Will said:

If a compulsory helmet law increase the risk of an accident by more than a helmet provides protection against the consequences. It's not rocket surgery.

How might it do that?

Cyclists might be prepared to take more risks because they are wearing a helmet.

A bit like wearing a bullet proof vest at a gunfight.

I don't take more risks because I wear a helmet and I don't believe other riders would either. I'd be interested to see any evidence of such a claim.

[mikee boy]

Mr Will said:

mikee boy said:

Mr Will said:

If a compulsory helmet law increase the risk of an accident by more than a helmet provides protection against the consequences. It's not rocket surgery.

How might it do that?

One example - by reducing the number of cyclists. Less cyclists results in more risk to those who do still cycle (drivers less likely to be expecting/looking for cyclists) which more than outweighs the marginal increase in helmet wearing.

It's a pattern that has been seen pretty much everywhere that has introduced a mandatory helmet law - the risk to cyclists per mile goes up.

But this discussion is about hospital admissions due to head injuries as a result of cycling, not the number of traffic accidents. I'm arguing that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one from a standpoint of head protection. I still fail to see how having a layer of protection between a hard tarmac and surface and a soft(er) skull would not reduce the risk of head injuries.

[Pothole]

944fan said:

Pothole said:

Birdthom said:

Pothole said:

Might have been your skull, you can't possibly say with absolute certainty and this is where this kind of assumption muddies the waters of the debate, imho.

I think he is in quite a good position to judge that, to be fair. This isn't a second form science test.

I don't agree.

Fight!

In all seriousness I have no idea if my skill would have cracked open or not medically speaking, but my perception was that without a helmet I would have suffered more injury. Therefore my point was that based on my previous experience I always wear one. It may have helped that day, it may have made no difference. It doesn't impact me to wear one and any additional protection it may offer is good.

My wife knew someone once who never wore a seat belt. Their reason was because they had an accident in Africa or some place and hit a large animal (might have been an Elephant). The only survived because they had no seat belt on and was thrown clear of the car (convertible) which then flipped and caught fire.

I understood your point, it was the use of the more definite 'would' I objected to. The point would not have been diluted had you used 'could' instead, I don't think.

It's a serious debate, so let's take it seriously and choose our words carefully.

[TKF]

sugerbear said:

Cyclists might be prepared to take more risks because they are wearing a helmet.

A bit like wearing a bullet proof vest at a gunfight.

I take it you didn't read the thread title?

[Birdthom]

Getragdogleg said:

My neighbour told me off for not ever wearing a helmet, I told her I did not feel it offers any extra safety to me because in my opinion they are little more than puffs of polystyrene that have been cleverly marketed.

Whilst I agree it was none of her business and it's your decision, I am utterly convinced that a helmet offers extra safety. Decent helmets are very well designed and manufactured, and it's amazing to see how they are designed to crumple and crack in a very structured fashion in an impact to save your bonce from doing it instead.

I keep two smashed helmets in my garage so that my kids (and their mates) can see just how important helmets are.

Still, it's your head.

[mikee boy]

Birdthom said:

I am utterly convinced that a helmet offers extra safety.

I am too. The debate then descends into a false debate about whether helmets should be compulsory or not and what they don't save you from, rather than this simple and central fact. People say "I choose to ride safer" or "It won't save me from a lorry crushing me" but that's not the point. The point is that, for the scenarios it's designed for (and more beyond the design spec), helmets do offer added protection compared to no helmet and do add to rider safety (but can't make it 100% safe).

I recently suffered a crash and smashed my helmetted head into the ground. This provided extra protection than had I not been wearing one.

[heebeegeetee]

mikee boy said:

I am too. The debate then descends into a false debate about whether helmets should be compulsory or not and what they don't save you from, rather than this simple and central fact. People say "I choose to ride safer" or "It won't save me from a lorry crushing me" but that's not the point. The point is that, for the scenarios it's designed for (and more beyond the design spec), helmets do offer added protection compared to no helmet and do add to rider safety (but can't make it 100% safe).

I recently suffered a crash and smashed my helmetted head into the ground. This provided extra protection than had I not been wearing one.

But I still cannot understand why cyclists should be picked out. I suffered head injuries in an open road car; millions of people have suffered head injuries in cars throughout the world.

Why don't we all want to wear full-face helmets to protect ourselves? Do not almost all of us on this site spend more time in cars than on cycles?

[Mr Will]

mikee boy said:

But this discussion is about hospital admissions due to head injuries as a result of cycling, not the number of traffic accidents. I'm arguing that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one from a standpoint of head protection. I still fail to see how having a layer of protection between a hard tarmac and surface and a soft(er) skull would not reduce the risk of head injuries.

There are two critical factors here - the risk of hitting your head on something and the risk of damage when you do. You cannot consider one without the other.

I'm not trying to argue that helmets don't provide any protection when you hit your head on something. The point is that mandatory helmet laws potentially increase the risk of cyclists hitting their heads in the first place.

Does that make it clearer?

[mikee boy]

heebeegeetee said:

mikee boy said:

I am too. The debate then descends into a false debate about whether helmets should be compulsory or not and what they don't save you from, rather than this simple and central fact. People say "I choose to ride safer" or "It won't save me from a lorry crushing me" but that's not the point. The point is that, for the scenarios it's designed for (and more beyond the design spec), helmets do offer added protection compared to no helmet and do add to rider safety (but can't make it 100% safe).

I recently suffered a crash and smashed my helmetted head into the ground. This provided extra protection than had I not been wearing one.

But I still cannot understand why cyclists should be picked out. I suffered head injuries in an open road car; millions of people have suffered head injuries in cars throughout the world.

Why don't we all want to wear full-face helmets to protect ourselves? Do not almost all of us on this site spend more time in cars than on cycles?

In a debate about cycling helmets I think we're going to talk about cyclists. If it was a debate about skiing, people would talk about skiing helmets instead.

I'm sorry to hear about your head injuries in a car. If people want to wear helmets in cars they should. I don't think it should be compulsory though.

[Mr Will]

mikee boy said:

If people want to wear helmets in cars they should. I don't think it should be compulsory though.

Why not?

[mikee boy]

Mr Will said:

mikee boy said:

But this discussion is about hospital admissions due to head injuries as a result of cycling, not the number of traffic accidents. I'm arguing that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one from a standpoint of head protection. I still fail to see how having a layer of protection between a hard tarmac and surface and a soft(er) skull would not reduce the risk of head injuries.

There are two critical factors here - the risk of hitting your head on something and the risk of damage when you do. You cannot consider one without the other.

I'm not trying to argue that helmets don't provide any protection when you hit your head on something. The point is that mandatory helmet laws potentially increase the risk of cyclists hitting their heads in the first place.

Does that make it clearer?

Not really. I have only argued that helmets reduce the risk of head injury. I don't agree with mandatory helmet laws but I'm not convinced that a mandatory helmet law would increase the probability of a cyclist hitting their head in the first place. I don't think you're convinced either, judging from your use of 'potentially'. I don't think there's any evidence for such a claim.

[mikee boy]

Mr Will said:

mikee boy said:

If people want to wear helmets in cars they should. I don't think it should be compulsory though.

Why not?

Because I don't agree that any helmets should be compulsory, especially in the closed confines of a car. As long as people understand the risks they take, they should be able to take risks.