Wear that helmet!

[WinstonWolf]

swerni said:

WinstonWolf said:

jimbop1 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Somewhat ironically last time I fell off a pushbike it was my knees, elbow and butt that took the brunt of the impact. Head was just fine

I've still not found out how I got massive gravel rash on my upper thighs without damaging my shorts

Are you sure you didn't damage your head??

If people don't want to wear a helmet that's fine..However I really don't understand why people say a helmet won't protect them.

Each to their own, I've fallen off loads of motorbikes without a helmet, never did any damage whatsoever. The one time I had a big crash I was wearing an open face and managed to smash my cheekbone right up (face first into a car). Ironically the helmet helped as I hit the back of my head when I landed unconscious in the road.

I don't think a cycle helmet offers much protection compared to a motorbike one, but I mostly wear one these days because my bones break a lot easier than when I was young

if your head has been damaged may well be up for debate.
Or it could just be your age.

I don't like wearing one but do if i'm in built up areas or during the winter.
I know I should wear one, it can only be a good thing, but I'm also a big believer in freedom of choice.

As Jimbop said, if you don't want to wear one fine, but why find the need to justify it?

Oi, I'm still young enough to wheelie every speed bump between London and Brighton

I'll usually wear one if clipped in as it changes how you fall, if I'm popping down the pub I won't. Which is kinda odd but there you go

[walm]

Mr Will said:

Okay, but if that's the case why is a pedestrian 28% more likely to die than a cyclist? That's the official DfT figure by the way.

That's per billion kilometers.
I think I would 100% die if you made me walk a billion kilometers... sheesh.

[Justin Cyder]

ohHello said:

I had made the quite valid point that if you are in favour of cyclist helmets you ought, to be logically consistent, to also be in favour of pedestrian helmets.

That was considered so ludicrous as to be a wind-up, but it's a fair point.

So yes, I possibly resorted to a bit of hyperbole, but I think it's fascinating that some people are more concerned about the relatively few cyclist head injuries than the far more numerous pedestrian head injuries.

So it was a loaded question coming off the back of a preposterous argument. It just gets better! I mean really, come off it, none of us came down in the last shower mate, please stop trying this on.

[walm]

Justin Cyder said:

So it was a loaded question coming off the back of a preposterous argument. It just gets better! I mean really, come off it, none of us came down in the last shower mate, please stop trying this on.

I disagree with HBGT but his argument structure is perfectly valid.
It's called a reductio ad absurdum.

"If an activity is sufficiently dangerous you should wear a helmet.
Cycling is dangerous so I wear a helmet.
Walking is equally dangerous, therefore to be consistent I should also wear a helmet when walking.

Obviously no one wears a helmet when walking so there must be something wrong with the premise that danger makes you wear one cycling."

Ta dah!

Unfortunately the flaw in the argument is that walking isn't equally dangerous.
It is far far less dangerous.
Unless you happen to walk the same distance you cycle (and most likely you have to be walking in built up urban areas too, since I suspect that is where the pedestrian deaths occur).

[Justin Cyder]

This is true, but when Ohello's assertion that pedestrians should wear helmets because it's as dangerous as cycling (nonsense) got poo pooed, his response was in effect; why do you wish to see pedestrians injured?

And that is the loaded question fallacy.

[walm]

Oh also, I strongly suspect that the pedestrian injuries are heavily weighted to the old and the very young.
Goateed company directors are essentially invulnerable as a pedestrian - mostly because they stick to the green cross code, while being sprightly and neither visually or audibly impaired.

Whereas on a bike their substantial build works against them and their fragile noggins once they are fully inverted.

[Westy Carl]

Mr Will said:

Okay, but if that's the case why is a pedestrian 28% more likely to die than a cyclist? That's the official DfT figure by the way.

No idea, I haven't seen that statistic. However statistics are meaningless without the assumptions behind them.

[walm]

Justin Cyder said:

This is true, but when Ohello's assertion that pedestrians should wear helmets because it's as dangerous as cycling (nonsense) got poo pooed, his response was in effect; why do you wish to see pedestrians injured?

And that is the loaded question fallacy.

I see what you mean. Got it.
I just took it as him repeating his original argument - because it was serious and not a wind up!

[heebeegeetee]

walm said:

I disagree with HBGT but his argument structure is perfectly valid.
It's called a reductio ad absurdum.

"If an activity is sufficiently dangerous you should wear a helmet.
Cycling is dangerous so I wear a helmet.
Walking is equally dangerous, therefore to be consistent I should also wear a helmet when walking.

Obviously no one wears a helmet when walking so there must be something wrong with the premise that danger makes you wear one cycling."

Ta dah!

Unfortunately the flaw in the argument is that walking isn't equally dangerous.
It is far far less dangerous.
Unless you happen to walk the same distance you cycle (and most likely you have to be walking in built up urban areas too, since I suspect that is where the pedestrian deaths occur).

Ta dah! I'm here. I've been away in the land of the free, ie Europe, where people have such a greater degree of freedom than we do here. I have to say, I always find it fantastic to see people enjoying cycling over there in a way that is impossible here. It's the sheer sense of freedom that gets me - pensioners, loads of them, cycling side by side in the sunshine, whereas in the uk they're all in stty buses where they sit with the unemployable - in Osnabruck Germany, countless pretty girls cycling whilst wearing normal clothes. No end of those trailer thingies too with young kids inside, which handily double as a push chair. https://www.vanvlietbikes.com/bike-trailers/crooze...

In the UK both moms and kids are shut firmly away in 4x4s and you just never see a pretty girl cycling in normal clothes on a normal bike over here.

I noticed that its rare to see people using mountain bikes or sports bikes for their utility cycling, meaning that people adopt a normal upright seating position whereas just about every cyclist has a lean-forward stance, putting weight on wrists and hands. You just don't see girls like these in the UK:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2...

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356789/Qu...

And cycle paths - I've been in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany and then again on the return leg. I've looked and seen countless miles of cycle paths, with not a *drop* of paint or marking on any of them, yet as we know, ours can look like this: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%...

Walm, you were doing ok until the last bit - what the hell does distance have to do with it, given that the cyclist will be travelling faster? An hour of cycling or an hour of walking, the exposure to danger is the same. But in case, for a link that says cycling is more dangerous there is one that says it isn't. http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/323/cycling/how-dang...

It *does* matter what they do on the continent imo because it is massively better than how we do things here and why on earth would we want to continue in the way we are? Why do we want to continue to do things badly? Why don't we genuinely want to make things better, for everyone?

I also found it interesting seeing countless people comfortably using an alternative to the motor car in Europe, whereas in the UK they'd all be in cars (or buses in the case of the pensioners). Europe has pointed out that our air quality is now too bad, so is the UK going to do anything to get people out of cars? No, it;s saying we should use petrol instead of diesel in our cars despite Europe using more diesel cars, historically using more diesel cars and continuing to this day to charge less for diesel than petrol. This is a different topic of course but just highlights for me how surely we must be the most stupid nation in western Europe.

[walm]

Don't blame me!
Mr Will brought it up saying that walkers are 28% more likely to die...

Mr Will said:

Type	Fatalities
Motorcycle	88.8
Walking	30.9
Bicycle	24.2
Car	1.9

Figures are deaths per billion kilometres travelled, taken from the 2008 DfT data.

...which is true if we walked as far as we cycled.

I agree with you that time spent doing something is probably a better measure.

ETA: I think you have quoted the same source!

Edited by walm on Tuesday 23 September 18:22

[heebeegeetee]

pablo said:

No you wouldnt, I'm not being belligerent but you wont wear one again and your mind has been made up. No research will turn you back into a cyle helmet wearer. Every shred of evidence that supports their use will be dismissed as anecdotal, irrelvant, incidental, biased or unsubstantiated..... but try these for starters...

http://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-content/upload...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24686160
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24365521
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169296
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377086
and of course http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC388833...

The problem with helmet research is the sheer number of variables that are invovled in each accident which may have a determining effect on the cyclists, helmeted or not. This makes an accident where someone who was wearing one and still suffered fatal injuries difficult to compare with someone who wasnt wearing one, was also involved in a simiar accident but who surviuved. As an example, the following will all be in some way a factor in an accident and affect the chances of survival; type of bike, cyclists speed at the time of impact, experience of cyclist, time of day, weight of traffic, road surface (assuming its the road the cyclist lands on), point of impact, speed of impact, area of body which took the impact, cyclists health and fitness, type of helmet and helmet fit.

And what Yellowjack said, the biggest issue regarding cyclists safety by far is road furniture and the sheer numbner of irrelevant, confusing and unnecessary signs, bollards, cycle lanes and traffic calming measures on the roads today.

You'd think in the face of such totally overwhelming evidence that there'd be not the slightest question that every country would mandate cycle helmets.

A lot of those links are very old though. However I clicked on the one of the recent ones which linked to this pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC212558...
entitled "Cyclists should wear helmets" yet when you actually read it the medical people are saying the complete opposite. Do any of the other links do likewise?

From *your* link:

The case for all cyclists to wear helmets, as
argued, fails to acknowledge the disbenefits
that have resulted when such strategies have
been enforced through legislation. Evidence
from Australian states where laws have been
enacted to require the use of helmets
suggests that “the greatest effect of the
helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to
wear helmets, but to discourage cycling.”2
digms and to collaborate if “benefits” gained
through some advances are not to be
outweighed by knock on effects in efforts to
promote health and wellbeing.
Adrian Davis Research assistant
Health and Transport Research Group, School of
Health and Social Welfare, Open University, Milton
Keynes
MK7 6AA

Australian laws making helmets
compulsory deterred people from cycling
Editor—Ronald M Davis and Barry Pless
report that, after the implementation of a
law requiring all cyclists to wear helmets, the
number of cyclists admitted to hospitals in
Victoria, Australia, was 40% below that

For some reason I can't seem to copy and paste any more, bit its your link Pablo and it is greatly arguing your points, not supporting them. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC212558...

[walm]

heebeegeetee said:

You'd think in the face of such totally overwhelming evidence that there'd be not the slightest question that every country would mandate cycle helmets.

No - you wouldn't think that at all.
You have to worry about the unintended consequences too - which as you quote - show it is a terrible idea to mandate helmets.

No one here (I think) is arguing for mandatory helmets.

[heebeegeetee]

walm said:

No - you wouldn't think that at all.

I think you would - if that huge body of evidence that pablo posted was right, then I think helmet laws would be taken far more seriously.

In fact though, much of it is out of date and as I posted, at least one of the links is anti helmet law, not pro.

But anyway, are you agreeing that the risks to cyclists and walkers a re much the same, 'cos that what most of the stuff i'm seeing is saying.

Three more points I will reiterate from previous threads:

I'm only arguing for ordinary or utility (or whatever you want to call them) cyclists, not mtbers, bmxers, sporting cyclists or whatever. I realise there are precious few ordinary cyclists (who wear ordinary clothes) in the UK, but I think that should change.

Head injuries are common, and some .75 - 1 million people attend a&e each year (depending on who's evidence you want to believe) so I can't understand why we only confine the head injury/helmet topic to cyclists.

If you believe so profoundly in cycle helmets (such as S10GTA for instance), and if it's only a matter of common sense to wear one at all times when cycling, why would you ever take it off? What common sense says that only cyclists have head injuries?

[Birdthom]

I love it when people use science as a substitute for actual experience

[Birdthom]

Come on, I'm not the one saying that coming off a bike at 50mph won't hurt your head any more than coming off at 5mph. I get your argument and I can see it makes sense at a theoretical level, but the reality is rather different.

[TKF]

BIANCO said:

So it doesn’t really matter if you are travailing at 50 mph or 5 mph your head will hit the floor with a very similar force.

Wow. And you claim other people have a poor grasp of physics?

[TKF]

WinstonWolf said:

Each to their own, I've fallen off loads of motorbikes without a helmet, never did any damage whatsoever.

Says the UKIP voter...

[Birdthom]

TKF said:

Wow. And you claim other people have a poor grasp of physics?

Travailing was an excellent autocorrect in the context of this thread.

[WinstonWolf]

TKF said:

WinstonWolf said:

Each to their own, I've fallen off loads of motorbikes without a helmet, never did any damage whatsoever.

Says the UKIP voter...

Keep being an ahole in NP&E, no need for it in here...

[walm]

BIANCO said:

I’m not questioning your maths but I will question your grasp of physics.

I am pretty familiar with how fast things drop and how that might be related to their horizontal velocity.
And yes, not at all is the right answer.

However the injuries I most often see are to do with hitting things as you come to a halt.
Usually trees or fences.
Road rash isn't the problem it is what comes after the road ends.

Also many people who fall as pedestrians seem to grab things as they fall or break their fall with their hands/arms etc. it is very rare to see someone simply drop like a sack of spuds.
(I saw a very very drunk girl do it once and her head hit the tile floor with one of the most horrid sounds I have ever heard. She just keeled over backwards and made no move to stop herself. She was severely concussed and unconscious for several minutes. Nasty.)
However most falls on a bike seem to come from nowhere and before you even know wtf is happening you are on the deck.
Or people head over the handlebars and swan-dive to victory but leave their hands behind.
So in effect I suspect you do get more head damage from a bike even from just the drop. Although of course that is nothing to do with how fast you are pedalling at the time.