Wear that helmet!

[Vipers]

ohHello said:

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"

The problem I see with your request is how many incidents are reported. I didn't report mine, no reason to do so. But it was of benefit to me.

Common sense sort of tells me they are of benefit.

[OTBC]

Gaspode said:

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.

Why the insult? The evidence I've read suggests there are no benefits from wearing a plastic hat when I'm on my bike. You disagree, but I don't insult you, I'm asking, politely, for your evidence.

I've cycled seventy thousand miles in London. I've cycled from Cherbourg to Corfu and over the Col du Tourmalet twice. I've cycled at least 3000 miles a year for thirty years and have never bumped my head. Not once. The chances of my getting a head injury are greater in a pub than on my bike, so why insult people who choose not to wear something that has zero benefit and may even make cycling more dangerous?

[Gaspode]

OTBC said:

Why the insult? The evidence I've read suggests there are no benefits from wearing a plastic hat when I'm on my bike. You disagree, but I don't insult you, I'm asking, politely, for your evidence.

I've cycled seventy thousand miles in London. I've cycled from Cherbourg to Corfu and over the Col du Tourmalet twice. I've cycled at least 3000 miles a year for thirty years and have never bumped my head. Not once. The chances of my getting a head injury are greater in a pub than on my bike, so why insult people who choose not to wear something that has zero benefit and may even make cycling more dangerous?

Good for you. I have sat by the bedside of a friend who died because he fell off a bike and hit his head. Which of these two experiences should I place more importance on, his, or yours?

[heebeegeetee]

Gaspode said:

Good for you. I have sat by the bedside of a friend who died because he fell off a bike and hit his head. Which of these two experiences should I place more importance on, his, or yours?

His, because anecdotal evidence has already been taken account of and it is what it is.

[OTBC]

Gaspode said:

Good for you. I have sat by the bedside of a friend who died because he fell off a bike and hit his head. Which of these two experiences should I place more importance on, his, or yours?

What was his name?

[heebeegeetee]

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

Then why on earth don't you wear a helmet at all times in case of a bat or wall interface? Head injuries are common so why on earth confine this subject to cyclists?

[Justin Cyder]

heebeegeetee said:

His, because anecdotal evidence has already been taken account of and it is what it is.

Yet anecdotal evidence is exactly what he proffers as a follow up to a long & windy death by a thousand cuts analysis of styrofoam. Why should I swallow one prejudice over another?

If samples of one are your thing, would you oblige me by headbutting a concrete wall first with & then without a helmet & report your anedotal results here tomorrow? Or in the next two months depending on when the high dependency unit let you out?

[heebeegeetee]

Justin Cyder said:

Yet anecdotal evidence is exactly what he proffers as a follow up to a long & windy death by a thousand cuts analysis of styrofoam. Why should I swallow one prejudice over another?

If samples of one are your thing, would you oblige me by headbutting a concrete wall first with & then without a helmet & report your anedotal results here tomorrow? Or in the next two months depending on when the high dependency unit let you out?

You are right about head butting a wall. So why don't you and I wear a helmet at all times?

[castex]

Helmet bores are so boring.

[heebeegeetee]

Justin Cyder said:

Yet anecdotal evidence is exactly what he proffers as a follow up to a long & windy death by a thousand cuts analysis of styrofoam. Why should I swallow one prejudice over another?

If samples of one are your thing, would you oblige me by headbutting a concrete wall first with & then without a helmet & report your anedotal results here tomorrow? Or in the next two months depending on when the high dependency unit let you out?

You are completely correct a out head butting a wall, so why don't you put a helmet on when you get out of bed in the morning?

[Justin Cyder]

heebeegeetee said:

You are right about head butting a wall. So why don't you and I wear a helmet at all times?

I'm not dignifying that nonsense, please don't ask again.

[OTBC]

Justin Cyder said:

I'm not dignifying that nonsense, please don't ask again.

But that's the whole point! You are substantially more likely to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than a cyclist.

Pedestrian injuries are substantially above the average:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1148.html

Those who call cyclists idiots for not wearing helmets are, by their own logic, much greater idiots for not wearing a helmet while walking down the street.

The idiots.

[heebeegeetee]

Justin Cyder said:

I'm not dignifying that nonsense, please don't ask again.

The only reason you're not answering is because you can't. Following your logic, there isn't a good reason for you not to wear a helmet at all times.

[Justin Cyder]

Only that supposition was done to death last week & frankly, it's hackneyed, spurious & doesn't stack up. Life is a risk, you can modify your behaviour to account for everything to the complete detriment of enjoyment or alternatively, you can ditch your logical flawlessness & target the obvious & get on with enjoying your time here.

[Birdthom]

OTBC said:

But that's the whole point! You are substantially more likely to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than a cyclist.

Pedestrian injuries are substantially above the average:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1148.html

Those who call cyclists idiots for not wearing helmets are, by their own logic, much greater idiots for not wearing a helmet while walking down the street.

The idiots.

1. People can form their own judgement on risk - if you never feel at risk then I can see why you'd feel there is no need to protect yourself. If you feel at risk (as I do) then it seems sensible to try to mitigate those risks. That's a very subjective individual question which has no definitive answer. I may not agree with your assessment, but it's your call not mine.
2. The thing which really grates is when people deny that helmets offer any level of protection (possibly even increasing risk of harm) and quote endless studies to prove their point. I'm sure we could all find studies which prove that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer, that global warming isn't happening etc etc, but it flies in the face of common sense and the general consensus of opinion is that you are wrong. Helmets may not be perfect, but it's pretty obvious that they offer some degree of protection. Arguing otherwise makes helmet-haters look like loons.

[heebeegeetee]

Birdthom said:

1. People can form their own judgement on risk - if you never feel at risk then I can see why you'd feel there is no need to protect yourself. If you feel at risk (as I do) then it seems sensible to try to mitigate those risks. That's a very subjective individual question which has no definitive answer. I may not agree with your assessment, but it's your call not mine.
2. The thing which really grates is when people deny that helmets offer any level of protection (possibly even increasing risk of harm) and quote endless studies to prove their point. I'm sure we could all find studies which prove that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer, that global warming isn't happening etc etc, but it flies in the face of common sense and the general consensus of opinion is that you are wrong. Helmets may not be perfect, but it's pretty obvious that they offer some degree of protection. Arguing otherwise makes helmet-haters look like loons.

Then why don't you wear a helmet all the time? Head injuries are common, but in our society nowadays we only associate a need for head protection to cycling, as though it is a risky activity along with other risky activities.

In this regard the uk is possibly unique in Europe.

[Vipers]

OTBC said:

Those who call cyclists idiots for not wearing helmets are, by their own logic, much greater idiots for not wearing a helmet while walking down the street.

The idiots.

That I agree with. I am amazed the amount of peds who don't look when crossing the road because the light is GREEN so it must be safe.

Thank god us drivers are observant. I asked my daughter why she never looked when crossing the road outside our house which is in a quiet area, she said "I would hear a car coming".

I told her she wouldn't hear a cyclist coming...... (With or without his helmet).

[Birdthom]

heebeegeetee said:

Then why don't you wear a helmet all the time? Head injuries are common, but in our society nowadays we only associate a need for head protection to cycling, as though it is a risky activity along with other risky activities.

In this regard the uk is possibly unique in Europe.

To answer your incredibly facile question, I do wear a helmet for other activities which I perceive to be risky. I could be wrong, but I perceive that my risk of head injury is higher when snowboarding or racing cars or bikes than it is when I am walking. I've had a number of big shunts in my life, none of them caused by walking.

Do you have a study which proves that walking is more risky than motor racing as well? Please do tell...

[Vipers]

Birdthom said:

Do you have a study which proves that walking is more risky than motor racing as well? Please do tell...

I wonder if a "Risk Assessment" would be interesting.

Tis a strange world though when medical conditions allow people to travel in cars without seat belts, and some motor cyclists are exempt from helmets on religious grounds.

Bearing that in mind, we will have no chance on agreeing on the subject on cycle helmets.

I feel they are beneficial and wear one, the incident I mentioned earlier has convinced me its a good thing. If others choose not to, it's their decision until it becomes compulsory, and it it ever does, how on earth would you police it.

[heebeegeetee]

Birdthom said:

To answer your incredibly facile question, I do wear a helmet for other activities which I perceive to be risky. I could be wrong, but I perceive that my risk of head injury is higher when snowboarding or racing cars or bikes than it is when I am walking. I've had a number of big shunts in my life, none of them caused by walking.

Do you have a study which proves that walking is more risky than motor racing as well? Please do tell...

I can only say it again - head injuries are common, with some 2,000 people visiting a&e each day with a head injury. This is a fact, and I doubt that many of those daily attendances would have involved motor racing or snow boarding.

I have absolutely no idea why you're asking me to compare walking with motor racing, and what on earth does motor racing have to do with ordinary cycling anyway?