More helmet debate - but this time sensible!
Discussion
Hugo a Gogo said:
well, aside from the obvious scrapes which will hurt, yes, I am saying that
as long as you aren't launched upwards, or you don't hit something upright
the main difference being that you can brace yourself with your arms at a standstill
What about the way your head can be repeatedly smacked against the tarmac with an increased whip effect as you go end over end?as long as you aren't launched upwards, or you don't hit something upright
the main difference being that you can brace yourself with your arms at a standstill
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Wednesday 10th July 20:32
Hugo a Gogo said:
you know your forward speed doesn't really have a bearing on how hard you hit the tarmac (assuming it's horizontal tarmac)?
I wonder why these discussions degenerate....OK then, if you had the choice of hitting your head on the ground from a normal rider height either from a standstill or at 30mph (all other things being equal, no putting your arm out or trying to land on something soft), which would you prefer and why?
Hugo a Gogo said:
and that obviously would include scrapes and abrasions to the head that might even be stopped by a wooly hat
And whatever option you chose, would you rather be wearing a woolly hat or a helmet?Birdthom said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
well, aside from the obvious scrapes which will hurt, yes, I am saying that
as long as you aren't launched upwards, or you don't hit something upright
the main difference being that you can brace yourself with your arms at a standstill
What about the way your head can be repeatedly smacked against the tarmac with an increased whip effect as you go end over end?as long as you aren't launched upwards, or you don't hit something upright
the main difference being that you can brace yourself with your arms at a standstill
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Wednesday 10th July 20:32
maybe I've never lived, but I've never seen a cyclist go end over end, repeatedly headbutting the tarmac
I've seen racing cyclists crash at high speed, usually they end up sliding along 'turtling' on their backs
certainly not on the way to the shops
any videos?
mikee boy said:
OK then, if you had the choice of hitting your head on the ground from a normal rider height either from a standstill or at 30mph (all other things being equal, no putting your arm out or trying to land on something soft), which would you prefer and why?
not sure, falling from a standstill to hit your head on tarmac without breaking the fall is enough to give you a fatal brain injury, either way, it makes no differencemikee boy said:
And whatever option you chose, would you rather be wearing a woolly hat or a helmet?
wooly hat please 
Hugo a Gogo said:
Birdthom said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
well, aside from the obvious scrapes which will hurt, yes, I am saying that
as long as you aren't launched upwards, or you don't hit something upright
the main difference being that you can brace yourself with your arms at a standstill
What about the way your head can be repeatedly smacked against the tarmac with an increased whip effect as you go end over end?as long as you aren't launched upwards, or you don't hit something upright
the main difference being that you can brace yourself with your arms at a standstill
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Wednesday 10th July 20:32
maybe I've never lived, but I've never seen a cyclist go end over end, repeatedly headbutting the tarmac
I've seen racing cyclists crash at high speed, usually they end up sliding along 'turtling' on their backs
certainly not on the way to the shops
any videos?
It all comes down to risk perception and willingness to mitigate it. Two coppers round here lobbyed to have this cul-de-sac changed to a 20mph zone so kids can play safetly in the street and yet their kids never wear lids. Risk of being hit by a car in this dead end street is naff all imo, risk of kids hitting head on kerbs when they fall off bikes - very high
JQ said:
Does anyone on this thread actually support compulsion? I get the impression, we're actually all in favour of free will, yet still arguing.
This is PH. We've got to argue and b
h at each other. Even in this sweaty, embrocation-scented corner...FWIW, despite being "pro" helmet, I'm not one for making them compulsory.
JQ said:
Does anyone on this thread actually support compulsion? I get the impression, we're actually all in favour of free will, yet still arguing.
I'm all in favour of personal choice as long as the helmets on sale do the job properly. Compared to my real helmet they seem a bit flimsy 
Jimbo. said:
This is PH. We've got to argue and bh at each other. Even in this sweaty, embrocation-scented corner...
FWIW, despite being "pro" helmet, I'm not one for making them compulsory.
Exactly, I'm pro helmet and always wear one, but if someone doesn't want to wear one that's their choice, and totally agree that if helmets become compulsory then so should full Nomex fire suits and full face helmets for car driving. Plus pedestrians should also have to wear helmets and pedestrians over 70yrs old should wear full body armour to stop broken bones when falling.h at each other. Even in this sweaty, embrocation-scented corner...FWIW, despite being "pro" helmet, I'm not one for making them compulsory.
Hopefully in 5 years time we'll all be wearing Graphene helmets that look just like a beanie rather than a mushroom.
Hugo a Gogo said:
really?
maybe I've never lived, but I've never seen a cyclist go end over end, repeatedly headbutting the tarmac
I've seen racing cyclists crash at high speed, usually they end up sliding along 'turtling' on their backs
certainly not on the way to the shops
any videos?
Never seen one come off at speed and have his had whip onto the ground harder than if he's just fallen from a standstill? I have done it myself. It hurts.maybe I've never lived, but I've never seen a cyclist go end over end, repeatedly headbutting the tarmac
I've seen racing cyclists crash at high speed, usually they end up sliding along 'turtling' on their backs
certainly not on the way to the shops
any videos?
mikee boy said:
Are you speaking from experience? How nasty was your crash onto tarmac? I'm only asking because you obviously have a first-hand story that is different to the others on here.
Personally, smashing my head into tarmac at 34 mph and still being alive is magic.
Here's a link to a study of UK A&E data for cyclists: http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6943/1537 comparing helmetted and non-helmetted riders.
"There were no significant differences between the two groups of cyclists with respect to the nature and site of injuries sustained except in the incidence of head injury: the difference between helmet wearers (4/114 (4%)) and non-wearers (100/928 (11%)) was significant, with an odds ratio of head injury in unhelmeted cyclists of 3.32"
"Our study has shown that wearing a helmet significantly decreases the risks of sustaining a head injury in all types of cycling accidents."
So, cyclists who didn't wear a helmet were more than 3 times more likely to sustain a head injury.
"We estimate that one in 40 cyclists will be involved in a cycle accident and seek help in our accident and emergency department each year."
This is very interesting.Personally, smashing my head into tarmac at 34 mph and still being alive is magic.
Here's a link to a study of UK A&E data for cyclists: http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6943/1537 comparing helmetted and non-helmetted riders.
"There were no significant differences between the two groups of cyclists with respect to the nature and site of injuries sustained except in the incidence of head injury: the difference between helmet wearers (4/114 (4%)) and non-wearers (100/928 (11%)) was significant, with an odds ratio of head injury in unhelmeted cyclists of 3.32"
"Our study has shown that wearing a helmet significantly decreases the risks of sustaining a head injury in all types of cycling accidents."
So, cyclists who didn't wear a helmet were more than 3 times more likely to sustain a head injury.
"We estimate that one in 40 cyclists will be involved in a cycle accident and seek help in our accident and emergency department each year."
When we had the very lengthy debate on this subject here on PH not long ago, like you the only evidence that the pro-compulsion people could find was evidence that was very old and completely out of date.
I'm curious as to why you've used research that is 19 years old. Is it because you've had to go that far back to find evidence that suits your point?
I urge you to have a google on this subject but keep more up to date, and I'm sure you'll get a different picture. For instance, this is what members of the BMJ have said recently: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/86697...
Another interesting factor in your 19 year old piece is the conclusion that "Our study has shown that wearing a helmet significantly decreases the risks of sustaining a head injury in all types of cycling accidents."
In fact the cycle helmet is not designed to play any part in an accident with another vehicle. It is only designed to protect the head against striking the ground or kerb at a speed of 12mph - in other words (IIRC) a straight drop from head height, so I'm struggling to see how a device can act 'significantly' in a function that it was never designed to do.
Ignoring all the statistics and 'evidence' which is presented on threads like this, why is it so hard for people to accept that a helmet helps to protect your head if you come off your bike? It is just plain obvious, and I can only think that those who take a different view are being deliberately obtuse.
The original debate here was whether they should be compulsory, which is another matter entirely. Most people on here (including the pro-helmet people) think they should not. Seems like quite a balanced view to me. Can we stop talking about stats now?
The original debate here was whether they should be compulsory, which is another matter entirely. Most people on here (including the pro-helmet people) think they should not. Seems like quite a balanced view to me. Can we stop talking about stats now?
heebeegeetee said:
In fact the cycle helmet is not designed to play any part in an accident with another vehicle. It is only designed to protect the head against striking the ground or kerb at a speed of 12mph - in other words (IIRC) a straight drop from head height, so I'm struggling to see how a device can act 'significantly' in a function that it was never designed to do.
If a cycle helmet is designed to protect the head from a particular form of impact, it's not surprising that it would protect the head from other forms of impact.it's whether that bit of *maybe* extra protection in some accidents is worth buying a lid and carrying it around whenever you want to go on a bike
I don't think it is for me, I only do 'low risk' cycling
trouble is, people aren't good at assessing risk, the actual risk of a head injury is very low, and is similar to the risk when walking around or driving in a car
that's the whole point, why focus on helmets for this one activity? the exact same arguments can be made for walking, driving, getting drunk, etc
I don't think it is for me, I only do 'low risk' cycling
Birdthom said:
Ignoring all the statistics and 'evidence' ....
yeah, we could do thattrouble is, people aren't good at assessing risk, the actual risk of a head injury is very low, and is similar to the risk when walking around or driving in a car
that's the whole point, why focus on helmets for this one activity? the exact same arguments can be made for walking, driving, getting drunk, etc
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Thursday 11th July 08:44
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff