Wear that helmet!

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

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.

ohHello

313 posts

114 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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.
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)

ohHello

313 posts

114 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

Justin Cyder

12,624 posts

148 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

Mr Will

13,719 posts

205 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
walm said:
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!
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)

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.

ohHello

313 posts

114 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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)

Zoon

6,654 posts

120 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

GarryDK

5,670 posts

157 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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.
Bianco is correct. a dropped bullet and a fired bullet from the same height will hit the ground at the same time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgIOknFz9L4

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Wednesday 24th September 2014
quotequote all
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 should have said "horizontal" not "straight".
He means firing it perpendicular to down.
If you fire it straight down of course it's getting there first.

OTBC

289 posts

121 months

Friday 26th September 2014
quotequote all
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.




smile
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

Vipers

32,797 posts

227 months

Friday 26th September 2014
quotequote all
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.




smile
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
Nothing new there really, I know it won't do much in a serious accident, short of wearing a motorcycle helmet. For minor accidents, which I had, in my opinion, it saved me from injury.

Horses for courses, I am satisfied with mine, it conforms to a recognised standard, EN 1078. Thanks for the link by the way.




smile

Watchman

6,391 posts

244 months

Friday 26th September 2014
quotequote all
Wow, still going with the polarised opinions.

Birdthom

788 posts

224 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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?“ 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.

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

2,441 posts

203 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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.


Edited by Birdthom on Saturday 27th September 00:18
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.


Gaspode

4,167 posts

195 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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

32,829 posts

175 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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. hehe

And it costs money. People who can't be bothered with lights, don't wear helmets either.

Vipers

32,797 posts

227 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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. hehe

And it costs money. People who can't be bothered with lights, don't wear helmets either.
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 biggrin




smile

colonel c

7,888 posts

238 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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 biggrin




smile
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.



ohHello

313 posts

114 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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"

OTBC

289 posts

121 months

Saturday 27th September 2014
quotequote all
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?