TED talk on cycling, and perceived risks
Discussion
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael...
Very interesting, and he raises some extremely valid points.
Very interesting, and he raises some extremely valid points.
Agreed. It's all a matter of assessing the risks involved and making an informed decision. I ride my MTB wearing a helmet, not really to reduce impact from falling off, but to deflect tree branches across the trail. By contrast, I cycled to Hungary this summer, some 2500Km and decide a good hat with a wide brim would be a better option than a helmet, keeping the sun and rain out of my eyes and my head cool.
I'm as steady on my bike as I am on my feet and I don't wear a helmet running or walking.
As an aside, some of my friends who have started cycling in recent years wear helmets religiously, trail, road or just down the pub. I definitely think it's become part of the culture and the cynic in me would say it's a good way to sell more kit.
I'm as steady on my bike as I am on my feet and I don't wear a helmet running or walking.
As an aside, some of my friends who have started cycling in recent years wear helmets religiously, trail, road or just down the pub. I definitely think it's become part of the culture and the cynic in me would say it's a good way to sell more kit.
Grrrrr this type of pseudoscience with jazzy images, a charismatic speaker mixed up with some unsubstantiated stats drives me nuts!! My favourite at the moment is the Nivea Anti-wrinkle cream that claims 'So it's no surprise that 37per cent of women feel more attractive now than they did ten years ago.'... This stat refers to a survey done on women IN GENERAL nothing to do with ones that had been using the cream!!
As has been discussed before in this forum exhaustively, (as he mentions about helmets being more dangerous) refers to a study showing them to be worse for small children who have not yet gained enough muscle control in their neck to support their head with the extra weight a helmet produces. That said it's an old study and i'm not aware of a more recent one using the new lighter helmets.
His point is correct that studies have shown cycling to be a life health/survival benefit if done regularly independent of risks of accidents over the course of a lifetime. But the reason why Holland has a reduced accident rate is due to many of their cities being designed for bicycles not because they don't wear helmets. Regarding helmets in cars.. Airbags came along instead and i think most new cars DO have them.
I prefer the question, that by definition you can't tell exactly when you're going to have an accident so on the basis you may, would you rather fall off your bike at 20mph onto your head with a helmet on or without one?
If you don't want to wear one knowing the risks then great, that's your decision, no problem. However don't not wear one because you believe a charismatic speaker peddling that science says it's safer not too... The evidence isn't there.
As has been discussed before in this forum exhaustively, (as he mentions about helmets being more dangerous) refers to a study showing them to be worse for small children who have not yet gained enough muscle control in their neck to support their head with the extra weight a helmet produces. That said it's an old study and i'm not aware of a more recent one using the new lighter helmets.
His point is correct that studies have shown cycling to be a life health/survival benefit if done regularly independent of risks of accidents over the course of a lifetime. But the reason why Holland has a reduced accident rate is due to many of their cities being designed for bicycles not because they don't wear helmets. Regarding helmets in cars.. Airbags came along instead and i think most new cars DO have them.
I prefer the question, that by definition you can't tell exactly when you're going to have an accident so on the basis you may, would you rather fall off your bike at 20mph onto your head with a helmet on or without one?
If you don't want to wear one knowing the risks then great, that's your decision, no problem. However don't not wear one because you believe a charismatic speaker peddling that science says it's safer not too... The evidence isn't there.
An interesting talk, but then again, anyone who says our society is becoming too risk-averse gets a vote in my book.
I'm not too sure on his statistics, or specifically the one about "people at more risk if they wear a helmet" that came out at one point. I'm sure he has studies to back it up, but as with all these things it's about the section of the populace which has been surveyed.
If you target under 10yr olds on their first 2 wheel bike for example, then most wear helmets because parents buy them (risk-averse society conditioning) but these youngsters are inexperienced, have absolutely no fear and their dad has told them the helmet will keep 'em safe anyway. So it wouldn't surprise me to find they have a high risk factor - but I doubt it's higher than when I learned to ride and helmets weren't invented. (and people had better things to do than compile so many statistical surveys)
Personally I wear a helmet all the time because I find it difficult to agree with the school of thought that says "helmets are dangerous"; if I hit my head then having something between my skin and the road has got to be good, even if it doesn't work above 10mph or splits on impact, it will lessen the damage I would otherwise have taken.
But it's a personal choice and I'd defend anyone's right not to wear one. I reckon we've got the balance right in the UK; make people aware, provide a relatively cheap product but step back from compulsion.
I'm not too sure on his statistics, or specifically the one about "people at more risk if they wear a helmet" that came out at one point. I'm sure he has studies to back it up, but as with all these things it's about the section of the populace which has been surveyed.
If you target under 10yr olds on their first 2 wheel bike for example, then most wear helmets because parents buy them (risk-averse society conditioning) but these youngsters are inexperienced, have absolutely no fear and their dad has told them the helmet will keep 'em safe anyway. So it wouldn't surprise me to find they have a high risk factor - but I doubt it's higher than when I learned to ride and helmets weren't invented. (and people had better things to do than compile so many statistical surveys)
Personally I wear a helmet all the time because I find it difficult to agree with the school of thought that says "helmets are dangerous"; if I hit my head then having something between my skin and the road has got to be good, even if it doesn't work above 10mph or splits on impact, it will lessen the damage I would otherwise have taken.
But it's a personal choice and I'd defend anyone's right not to wear one. I reckon we've got the balance right in the UK; make people aware, provide a relatively cheap product but step back from compulsion.
Helmets = speed cameras.
The idea is to reduce accident severity, and assumes that all things are equal, i.e. that the intervention doesn't change the accident probability.
Thing is, accidents are almost always avoidable. Making people feel safer by sticking a magic hat on their head is precisely the wrong thing to do if you want them to change their behaviour to be safer cyclists. Helmets don't save people, skills save people.
There's a story doing the rounds about a young triathlete who crashed his bike into an oncoming car, smashed his face in (narrowly avoided permanent brain damage) and then after recovering started lecturing school kids about how his helmet saved him so they should always wear them. The story actually just proves that triathletes have s
t bike handling skills, which we all knew already.
The idea is to reduce accident severity, and assumes that all things are equal, i.e. that the intervention doesn't change the accident probability.
Thing is, accidents are almost always avoidable. Making people feel safer by sticking a magic hat on their head is precisely the wrong thing to do if you want them to change their behaviour to be safer cyclists. Helmets don't save people, skills save people.
There's a story doing the rounds about a young triathlete who crashed his bike into an oncoming car, smashed his face in (narrowly avoided permanent brain damage) and then after recovering started lecturing school kids about how his helmet saved him so they should always wear them. The story actually just proves that triathletes have s
t bike handling skills, which we all knew already.HundredthIdiot said:
Thing is, accidents are almost always avoidable. Making people feel safer by sticking a magic hat on their head is precisely the wrong thing to do if you want them to change their behaviour to be safer cyclists. Helmets don't save people, skills save people.
Do you really believe that many people think they are safe because of their "magic hat"?I think pretty much every cyclist knows that falling off fecking hurts, helmet or no helmet.
Mr Will said:
Do you really believe that many people think they are safe because of their "magic hat"?
Significantly safer, yes.Mr Will said:
I think pretty much every cyclist knows that falling off fecking hurts, helmet or no helmet.
People feel significantly less vulnerable when wearing helmets. Otherwise, why would they wear them? Many people are not bothered by actual accident risk, or else I wouldn't see hundreds of people cycling around poorly lit city streets with hi-vis but no lights. Stick on the helmet, stick on the hi-vis, cycle like a twunt.Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff