Wear that helmet!
Discussion
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.
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...
I posted the links becuase its important to find arguments that both support and disprove a hypothesis, not just blindly scour the web searching for things that support an opinion. I dont really mind that some research proves that cycling particpants drop if compulsary laws are put in place, this supports the view that compulsary helmet laws are daft and hopefully decision makers in the Country take note. I am in now way advocating such a law. I just find it sad when people go out of their way to try and prove that not wearing a helmet is safer or the level of protection offered is minimal (which is still slightly more than none) and use poor research to justify thier position. 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...
Comparing the UK to the continent is pointless though, our road design methodology is markedly different and so is the motorists attitude to cyclists. The UK is far more built up than Copenhagen, Stockholm etc and the infrastructure in UK towns and cities is geared to ease motor traffic congestion and improve flow with scant regard for other road users, I am sure you witnessed this. I am sure if the research was conducted, the UK would be low down on a list of EU Countries where motorists also cycle regularly.
I cycled in to work this morning with a beanie hat on because it was cold and I am bald. I didnt die. That 93% of my route is on traffic free cycle paths also influenced my decision. My only argument throughout the whole debate has been that it is impossible to prove how many serious injuries have been prevented when the cyclist was wearing a helmet, we get up dust ourselves off, and away we go, no statistic is recorded, no research collected, they are the unknown unknowns if you will. Just look at all the varibles that I listed in the previous post, there must be a dozen more that peopel can think of that affect the chances of an injury regardless of what the cyclist has on their head!
Anyway, lets not get too emotive over this, there are bigger, more important things to discuss.
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.
Try re-reading, I never said that pedestrians should wear helmets.And that is the loaded question fallacy.
I said that if you are in favour of helmets for cyclists you should, to be logically consistent, also be in favour of helmets for pedestrians.
And I also didn't say that walking was as dangerous as cycling, but broadly similar (ie both very low risk)
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.
How is my argument preposterous?If you are in favour of cycling helmets but not in favour of pedestrian helmets, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
ohHello said:
How is my argument preposterous?
If you are in favour of cycling helmets but not in favour of pedestrian helmets, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
I'm going to leave you to it, because having been shown to favour one fallacious argument, you're now moving on to another, I.e. ad hominem. I could go round & round with you, but it's clear you're pretty entrenched in your position and if it's coming down to name calling, then you know...cheers.If you are in favour of cycling helmets but not in favour of pedestrian helmets, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
walm said:
Don't blame me!
Mr Will brought it up saying that walkers are 28% more likely to die...
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!
Per hour is generally better for recreational activities, per mile is generally better for transport. After all, my office and house don't change location whether I drive, walk or cycle between them (it's just over 4 miles, all are valid options)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.
I agree with you that time spent doing something is probably a better measure.
ETA: I think you have quoted the same source!
Since you seem to like statistics though here are some figures for different measures
2012 (UK) | Walking | Cycling | Motorcycling |
---|---|---|---|
Years per death | 976 | 353 | 30 |
Trips per death | 30,351,014 | 8,067,454 | 585,698 |
Miles per death | 26M | 27M | 6M |
Years per death walking wins, because of the greater speed of cycling. Trips per death is biased in this instance because of the large number of very short walking trips. Miles per death cycling comes out ahead because of less time to cover the distance.
The point isn't which one is more slightly more risky than the other though, it is the fact that they are broadly comparable. The way we represent cycling is as if it was orders of magnitude more dangerous than simply walking to the shops, but the figures don't bear that out.
Mr Will said:
The point isn't which one is more slightly more risky than the other though, it is the fact that they are broadly comparable. The way we represent cycling is as if it was orders of magnitude more dangerous than simply walking to the shops, but the figures don't bear that out.
This, exactly.Normal cycling is a low risk activity. You are very unlikely to suffer a head injury.
There are lots of activities we do with a similar or greater risk of head injury where you'd be considered odd at the least to suggest a helmet.
So, even if helmets might make a difference in some situations, the risk is so vanishingly remote as to be not worth the bother, IMO.
What gets my goat is people who insist I'm somehow reckless or stupid, or lacking in common sense for my (informed) decision not to wear a helmet for normal cycling. (as already explained, I do wear one when mountain biking)
BIANCO said:
You do you know if you fire a bullet perfectly straight and at the exact same time you drop a bullet from the same height they will both hit the floor at the exact same time with the same vertical speed.
How is that so? A bullet fired from a gun is already moving much faster than the dropped bullet before it reaches terminal velocity? Unless I've misunderstood.Zoon said:
BIANCO said:
You do you know if you fire a bullet perfectly straight and at the exact same time you drop a bullet from the same height they will both hit the floor at the exact same time with the same vertical speed.
How is that so? A bullet fired from a gun is already moving much faster than the dropped bullet before it reaches terminal velocity? Unless I've misunderstood.Zoon said:
BIANCO said:
You do you know if you fire a bullet perfectly straight and at the exact same time you drop a bullet from the same height they will both hit the floor at the exact same time with the same vertical speed.
How is that so? A bullet fired from a gun is already moving much faster than the dropped bullet before it reaches terminal velocity? Unless I've misunderstood.He means firing it perpendicular to down.
If you fire it straight down of course it's getting there first.
Vipers said:
So I fall 6 ft 4 inches, smash the side of my head on hard Tarmac, and didn't even get a bruise, and you say it failed, don't think so.
Not at all, basic physics says the helmet failed. The next time you see a broken helmet, suspend belief and do the most basic check – disregard the breakages and look to see if what’s left of the styrofoam has compressed. If it hasn’t, you can be reasonably sure that it hasn’t saved anyone’s life.http://crag.asn.au/391
OTBC said:
Vipers said:
So I fall 6 ft 4 inches, smash the side of my head on hard Tarmac, and didn't even get a bruise, and you say it failed, don't think so.
Not at all, basic physics says the helmet failed. The next time you see a broken helmet, suspend belief and do the most basic check – disregard the breakages and look to see if what’s left of the styrofoam has compressed. If it hasn’t, you can be reasonably sure that it hasn’t saved anyone’s life.http://crag.asn.au/391
Horses for courses, I am satisfied with mine, it conforms to a recognised standard, EN 1078. Thanks for the link by the way.
OTBC said:
Not at all, basic physics says the helmet failed. The next time you see a broken helmet, suspend belief and do the most basic check â?â disregard the breakages and look to see if whatâ??s left of the styrofoam has compressed. If it hasnâ??t, you can be reasonably sure that it hasnâ??t saved anyoneâ??s life.
http://crag.asn.au/391
Have you ever tried cracking a helmet? It takes a big effort. A smashed helmet means that the impact has been dissipated by something other than the rider's skull.http://crag.asn.au/391
I do wonder how many of the anti-helmet brigade have ever suffered a big smash on their head.
ETA, I really fail to comprehend some of the jibberish on this subject. If someone told me I had to headbutt a wall or be whacked with a baseball bat it seems pretty obvious that I'd be better off wearing a helmet than not. Is anyone going to deny that? Wall/road/bat/lamppost is all the same as far as your skull is concerned.
Edited by Birdthom on Saturday 27th September 00:18
Birdthom said:
Have you ever tried cracking a helmet? It takes a big effort. A smashed helmet means that the impact has been dissipated by something other than the rider's skull.
I do wonder how many of the anti-helmet brigade have ever suffered a big smash on their head.
ETA, I really fail to comprehend some of the jibberish on this subject. If someone told me I had to headbutt a wall or be whacked with a baseball bat it seems pretty obvious that I'd be better off wearing a helmet than not. Is anyone going to deny that? Wall/road/bat/lamppost is all the same as far as your skull is concerned.
Just let them carry on. The world would be a better place without these fkwits who don't have enough common sense to know a helmet would help protect them.I do wonder how many of the anti-helmet brigade have ever suffered a big smash on their head.
ETA, I really fail to comprehend some of the jibberish on this subject. If someone told me I had to headbutt a wall or be whacked with a baseball bat it seems pretty obvious that I'd be better off wearing a helmet than not. Is anyone going to deny that? Wall/road/bat/lamppost is all the same as far as your skull is concerned.
Edited by Birdthom on Saturday 27th September 00:18
jimbop1 said:
Just let them carry on. The world would be a better place without these fkwits who don't have enough common sense to know a helmet would help protect them.
Precisely. That's the point I was trying to make earlier. People shouldn't be compelled to wear helmets, but those too dim to see they are highly likely to be of benefit when you fall off are probably better advised to continue to not wear them. That way the rest of us get to benefit as their genes will get weeded out over time.Those who accept they are beneficial, but decline to use them for whatever reason are exercising their freedom of choice in line with their own risk appetite, which is fair enough if they are prepared to accept the consequences for themselves and their families should something go wrong. Brain injuries are easily incurred and not easily recovered from.
soad said:
Daveyraveygravey said:
I'm going to say it - what is so bad about wearing a helmet?!
Since you ask - makes my (fine) hair look a right mess. And it costs money. People who can't be bothered with lights, don't wear helmets either.
Isn't rocket science.
BTW, wish it made my hair a right mess............ not much left now. But I save a bunch on haircuts
Vipers said:
Same tts who don't fit bells, and zoom past you on footpaths. I ride daily in country lanes, (just to keep fit), I often pass horse riders, and folk walking their dogs or buggies, I always ding the bell on approach and a friendly chat when I pass them.
Isn't rocket science.
BTW, wish it made my hair a right mess............ not much left now. But I save a bunch on haircuts
Totally agree. I find an advance warning ping and most folk are happy to move out of the way with a smile and a pleasant 'good morning'. As a walker when tts steam past without any warning it simply puts one's back up and generally enhances the negative views of cyclists many people hold.Isn't rocket science.
BTW, wish it made my hair a right mess............ not much left now. But I save a bunch on haircuts
Gaspode said:
Precisely. That's the point I was trying to make earlier. People shouldn't be compelled to wear helmets, but those too dim to see they are highly likely to be of benefit when you fall off are probably better advised to continue to not wear them. That way the rest of us get to benefit as their genes will get weeded out over time.
Those who accept they are beneficial, but decline to use them for whatever reason are exercising their freedom of choice in line with their own risk appetite, which is fair enough if they are prepared to accept the consequences for themselves and their families should something go wrong. Brain injuries are easily incurred and not easily recovered from.
I would love to see what evidence you have to support the position that helmets are "highly likely to be of benefit when you fall off"Those who accept they are beneficial, but decline to use them for whatever reason are exercising their freedom of choice in line with their own risk appetite, which is fair enough if they are prepared to accept the consequences for themselves and their families should something go wrong. Brain injuries are easily incurred and not easily recovered from.
Birdthom said:
A smashed helmet means that the impact has been dissipated by something other than the rider's skull.
I've no idea why this is probably the most common myth about cycle helmets.A major helmet manufacturer collected damaged childrens' helmets for investigation over several months. According to their senior engineer, in that time they did not see any helmet showing signs of crushing on the inside (Sundahl, 1998). Helmet foam does not 'rebound' after compression to any significant extent. If the styrofoam does not compress, it cannot reduce linear acceleration of the brain. The most protection that it can give to the wearer is to prevent focal damage of the skull and prevent minor wounds to the scalp. It is not likely to prevent serious brain injury.
Some dissipation of impact force might occur from the action of a helmet breaking, but in most cases this is likely to be small. Helmet standards require the foam to start to compress at a level of force less than that which might be expected to lead to brain injury. While it is known that many helmets do not actually meet the standards to which they are supposed to be accredited (BHRF, 1081), it follows that if the styrofoam does not compress at all, the direct linear force on the helmet was minimal and it's quite possible that the cyclist would not have received any injury if the helmet had not been worn.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
There is a much stronger argument for helmet compulsion for all motor vehicle occupants, where the chances of a head injury are greater.
Genuine question, would those who call helmetless cyclists "idiots" wear a helmet every time they got in a car? If not, why not?
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff