Negative View of Cycle Helmets

John_C

GreeBo wrote:

Mneah, you see someone cycling without a helmet you book them.
You dont need to go looking for them or setup sting operations.

You do need to take a morning off work to attend in court though.

tabatha

god, i just cant understand this. what are peoples problems? there is a chance, be it marginal that helmets protect be it also in certain circumstances but they do. so why not wear one???? get over it people. its not to protect anyone else and its its also not good enough to say that trucks are a bigger risk. each section of safety has to be looked at separately. if it posses no risk to your health to wear one and causes no harm to yourself or others then why not? i wear my seatbelt in my car, not to protect others on the street but to protect me! i have heard people scrap the bottom of the barrel on here trying to justify why they shouldnt have to wear them but why? i just cant understand. no one as of yet have given any valid reasons as i can see as to why they shouldnt wear one. on the other hand people had given personal stories as to why you should and evidence has been given that they do prove to help in certain circumstances. everyone seems to be looking over these certain circumstances and saying "oh well, i dont cycle less then 12kmph which is when the experts say that a helmet could protect" or "the trucks are the problems" or "motorists should wear helmets". that is not the point!!

what i would like to know of you people that believe that there is no reason to be wearing a helmet is, if you had children and you took them out cycling on a road that had traffic would you let them cycle without a helmet?

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

god, i just cant understand this.

Then maybe you should read the thread again and better undersatand the points being made?

roadmanmad

We can all fool ourselves if we wish.

There are people who see a need to wear a helmet and those who do not.

As I said before, we will all have to live with our choices.

cyclopath2001

roadmanmad wrote:

We can all fool ourselves if we wish.There are people who see a need to wear a helmet and those who do not.As I said before, we will all have to live with our choices.

I think you're over-simplifying the debate that has taken place here.

It is not a pro-helmet / anti-helmet debate.

Only those who choose to see issues in black & white would say so.

tabatha

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I think you're over-simplifying the debate that has taken place here.

It is not a pro-helmet / anti-helmet debate.

Only those who choose to see issues in black & white would say so.

i thought it was??

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

i thought it was??

Indeed you did.

Now you understand why it's so important that you carefully read the thread.

John_C

tabatha wrote:

its also not good enough to say that trucks are a bigger risk. each section of safety has to be looked at separately.

...

if you had children and you took them out cycling on a road that had traffic would you let them cycle without a helmet?

This is where I disagree with you Tabatha. If you wouldn't let your child cycle without a helmet because falling is too dangerous then you should logically not let your child do anything even more dangerous than that, for example cycle in traffic or ride in a car.

The basic logic of my argument is that if I was too choose to wear my helmet for one hour every day I should choose the hour when the helmet would do me the most good. I'm not convinced that that hour is when I'm cycling. If head injuries are more common amoungst drivers than cyclists I should wear it while I'm in the car. The same would be true if head injuries were most common amoungst joggers or pedestrians.

The reality of the situation is that we take small risks every day and it makes more sence to protect yourself against the bigger ones than the smaller ones.

To sum up my argument, statistics show quite clearly that cycling is much better for your health and safety than driving or taking the bus. Should a law be brought in saying that every journey under a certain distance must be taken by bicycle? If it even saved one life would it be worth it?

robfitz

GreeBo wrote:

Mneah, you see someone cycling without a helmet you book them.
You dont need to go looking for them or setup sting operations.

If it's going to be that easy to book people for not wearing a helmet, why do so many cyclist get away with cycling without proper/any lighting, cycling through red lights, cycling on the footpaths, etc? (Similar questions can also be asked of motorists drink driving, speeding, overtaking, parking, etc.)

We have to be the easiest to catch.

The problem is that the gardai are unwilling or unable or not allowed to enforce the existing road traffic legislation. Better enforcement of the existing legislation will save many more lives and greatly reduce serious and minor injuries then any new legislation requiring cyclists to wear cycle helmets.

Token safety measures like mandatory cycle helmets and mandatory cycle tracks allow the goverment to say they are promoting safety and cycling, but they only help to re-enforce the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity in the minds of non & potential cyclists.

tabatha

John_C wrote:

This is where I disagree with you Tabatha. If you wouldn't let your child cycle without a helmet because falling is too dangerous then you should logically not let your child do anything even more dangerous than that, for example cycle in traffic or ride in a car.

The basic logic of my argument is that if I was too choose to wear my helmet for one hour every day I should choose the hour when the helmet would do me the most good. I'm not convinced that that hour is when I'm cycling. If head injuries are more common amoungst drivers than cyclists I should wear it while I'm in the car. The same would be true if head injuries were most common amoungst joggers or pedestrians.

The reality of the situation is that we take small risks every day and it makes more sence to protect yourself against the bigger ones than the smaller ones.

To sum up my argument, statistics show quite clearly that cycling is much better for your health and safety than driving or taking the bus. Should a law be brought in saying that every journey under a certain distance must be taken by bicycle? If it even saved one life would it be worth it?

well what i am saying is if there is an aid there that can possibly help - use it!

im also not saying to give up cycling either. cycle - but with a helmet!

tabatha

John_C wrote:

If it even saved one life would it be worth it?

eah, yes!!!! what kind of stupid thing is that to say??

tabatha

robfitz wrote:

Token safety measures like mandatory cycle helmets and mandatory cycle tracks allow the goverment to say they are promoting safety and cycling

this i totally agree with

John_C

tabatha wrote:

eah, yes!!!! what kind of stupid thing is that to say??

So do you practice what you preach? Do you wear a helmet while driving or out walking?

If not, do you not think it's worth it since it has the potential to save even one life?

If you do then fair enough, your argument is consistant with itself.

tabatha

dont turn this back on me. we are talking about cycling here not driving or walking. i think that is a very selfish view to have. speak to some mother who has lost a child due to falling from a bike. the case of the young girl from ballyfermot that i spoke about in an earlier thread is an example of this. i dont think her mother would appricate a view such as your own.

Ghost Rider

I just want to interject briefly, but sincerely, in order to say that I think this is the most interesting thread yet to appear on this forum.

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

dont turn this back on me. we are talking about cycling here not driving or walking.

I think you miss the point of why people ask you if you would favour wearing helmets while walking or driving.

They're not trying to demolish your deeply held faith in the protective powers of cycle helmets, it's to discover if you believe that people should be allowed to make decisions about their safety based on the risk involved in whatever activity they are involed in.

The amount of risk involved in cycling varies depending on the environment in which it is practiced, the style of riding & the experience of the cyclist. While you strongly resist the heretical notion of pedestrians being obliged to wear helmets, what about rock-climbers? Many rock-climbers choose to wear helmets.

Your answer would help us understand your attitude towards cycling and if it is based on sentiment or reason.

PS: Cycle helmets are not recommended for small children, due to the risk of strangulation.

rubadub

tabatha wrote:

dont turn this back on me. we are talking about cycling here not driving or walking.

If you read through the replies you will find plenty of people are talking about driving and walking, and why wouldnt they? they are the 2 other main forms of transport on our streets/roads.

Why are you so insistent on ignoring them? You seem in utter disbelief that people will not wear protection while journeying in one style, yet find it perfectly acceptable that nobody wears protection in other modes of transport.

You asked the very question yourself

there is a chance, be it marginal that helmets protect be it also in certain circumstances but they do. so why not wear one????

And obviously you already know the answer if you would take your blinkers off and question yourself why you do not wear a helmet continually. I weigh up the risks myself and choose what activities I will or wont take part in, and what protection I need. I would never wear shorts on a bike since jeans offer protection if I fall, yet I would not go about saying "what are peoples problems???? why on earth do they wear shorts cycling" as though they are ignorant fools.

tabatha

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I think you miss the point of why people ask you if you would favour wearing helmets while walking or driving.

They're not trying to demolish your deeply held faith in the protective powers of cycle helmets, it's to discover if you believe that people should be allowed to make decisions about their safety based on the risk involved in whatever activity they are involed in.

The amount of risk involved in cycling varies depending on the environment in which it is practiced, the style of riding & the experience of the cyclist. While you strongly resist the heretical notion of pedestrians being obliged to wear helmets, what about rock-climbers? Many rock-climbers choose to wear helmets.

Your answer would help us understand your attitude towards cycling and if it is based on sentiment or reason.

PS: Cycle helmets are not recommended for small children, due to the risk of strangulation.

ok then. i dont see the need to be honest in wearing a helmet when walking as i dont think people really fall over when walking unless drunk. in this case then yes they should. i see a guy fall over last thursday night in town and smack his head. driving, i dont know. i have never even contemplated the idea. i dont think that would work as im sure it would have to be a helmet that covered like a motorbike helmet and this would restrict your view and be very claustrophobic when inside.

tabatha

cyclopath2001 wrote:

PS: Cycle helmets are not recommended for small children, due to the risk of strangulation.

can i also ask where you found this nugget of information?

tabatha

[QUOTE=rubadub I would never wear shorts on a bike since jeans offer protection if I fall, yet I would not go about saying "what are peoples problems???? why on earth do they wear shorts cycling" as though they are ignorant fools.[/QUOTE]

in fairness, i think there is a difference. you cant kill yourself from scrapping your knee. you can kill yourself from banging your head.

el tel

I frequently see kids out on bikes with their crash helmets perched on the back of their heads. This is how strangulation or choking can be caused during a fall. (You often same the same badly positioned helmets on holiday programmes where the presenter happens to be riding a bike)

rubadub

tabatha wrote:

ok then. i dont see the need to be honest in wearing a helmet when walking as i dont think people really fall over when walking unless drunk.

What if they are hit by a car, like a cyclist??

tabatha wrote:

i have never even contemplated the idea.

Thats the whole problem with this thread. People exclaiming utter disbelief that somebody could be so idiotically stupid that they would cycle without a helment yet not question anybody else.

tabatha wrote:

i dont think that would work as im sure it would have to be a helmet that covered like a motorbike helmet and this would restrict your view and be very claustrophobic when inside.

Cyclists normally dont wear motorbike style helmets so why would drivers? Many moped drivers wear those cap like helmets. Many here are saying something is better than nothing so why not a cycling helmet in the car?
The wesbsite posted before seem to think helmets in cars are useful.

tabatha wrote:

in fairness, i think there is a difference. you cant kill yourself from scrapping your knee. you can kill yourself from banging your head.

I have banged my head 100's of times in my life and, bizarrely, I am still alive. I have fallen many times from a bike and my jeans did save me from scrapes, I never have come close to hitting my head on a fall from a bike.
Helmets are designed to rupture like a car bumper, they are supposed to crumple to absorb force, get a human skull and a helmet and hit them with a hammer. The way people are going on here you would think the helmet is equivalent to a skull, i.e. if their helmet is fractured in a fall, then if they would had been without their skull would be fractured. This is not the case I have seen finite element analysis of the human head and it is extremely strong.

What I was getting at is that I do choose certain forms of protection and do not go around shocked preaching to people who do not choose the same ones I do. Jeans is one example. I wear steel toe boots in work. I wear protective gloves while doing certain jobs. I have lots of powerful lights on my bike. I wear goggles when drilling. I wear a tough jacket if I think I will need it on that route.

tabatha

look, the fact of the matter is that most cyclists cycle on the road, very close to traffic. you are not as steady on a bike as you are on your feet.

i have never heard of a child been strangled by falling of a bike due to a helmet. have you et hel or is this something thats hypothetical? funny that any of the websites i have read on this issue have ALL recommended that children should wear helmets. its up to the parents to make sure that they are wearing the helmet correctly.

at the end of the day its like flogging a dead horse. you are probably one of those people who think "it will never happen to me". do what you will and take your chances.

someone mentioned something in an earlier post about tour de france riders, why do they were helmets if they are no use?

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

can i also ask where you found this nugget of information?

On the manfacturer's label on inside of my cycle helmet. Have you looked inside yours?

tabatha wrote:

at the end of the day its like flogging a dead horse. you are probably one of those people who think "it will never happen to me". do what you will and take your chances.

As you do when you decide to walk without wearing a helmet. You make a personal decision about what safety equipment you will wear, why not let others do the same?

tabatha wrote:

someone mentioned something in an earlier post about tour de france riders, why do they were helmets if they are no use?

1 - It's in the rules.
2 - It helps limit the organiser's liability if they are sued.
3 - They're paid to wear them by the helmet-manufacturers.

GreeBo

rubadub wrote:

IfYou seem in utter disbelief that people will not wear protection while journeying in one style, yet find it perfectly acceptable that nobody wears protection in other modes of transport.

The other forms of transport already have protection.
Motorbike = Helmet
Car = Seatbelt, The car itself.
Walking = Foothpath/Lights provides separation from the "danger"

Would you go on a motorbike without a helmet?

tabatha

i think this thread has exhausted itself. i had made my views known. i agree that bringing in a law on helmets would do no harm. if people then want to stop cycling because they are to vain or whatever, thats there loss. i am safe in the knowledge that myself and my family are "adult" enough to have the sense to know that cycling is indeed a dangerous hobby so we will protect ourselves where ever and how ever we can.

dalk

tabatha wrote:

you are probably one of those people who think "it will never happen to me".

I am one of those people who thinks it is extremely unlikely it will happen to me. There is a difference. Its called acceptable risk. Just as when you get into your car there is no guarantee that you will not be involved in a fatal accident. It is however unlikely... Hence people accept (or dont even consider) the risk.

There is a balance between acceptable risk and over-legislation.

I will again state my opinion that cycling is not dangerous, despite what people seem to think.

dalk

tabatha wrote:

to vain or whatever

So basically your "adult" conclusion, despite what has been said on this thread is that people do not wear helmets because of vanity. :rolleyes:

tabatha wrote:

that cycling is indeed a dangerous hobby

It is not dangerous. There is no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. If you consider it to be so dangerous, why do you let your family on a bike?

sobriquet

tabatha wrote:

driving, i dont know. i have never even contemplated the idea. i dont think that would work as im sure it would have to be a helmet that covered like a motorbike helmet and this would restrict your view and be very claustrophobic when inside.

A few points on this: if restricted vision is an issue, why do motorbikers use them? Restricted vision would put them at far greater risk of injury (through increased likelihood of a collision) than not wearing the helmet at all. Regardless, it's a moot point, rally drivers use helmets that fully cover the head and leave the face exposed - it does not have to be fully covered. Also, why is claustrophobia an issue? It apparently isn't for all the motorbikers out there. If you mean discomfort then I agree with you. My lid wrecks me bleedin nuts. I'd rather not wear own even on the trails if it was possible.

tabatha wrote:

i have never heard of a child been strangled by falling of a bike due to a helmet. have you et hel or is this something thats hypothetical?

A quick google suggests that it can indeed happen - the first page of (about 10,500) results indicates a case on a Canadian playground. Thankfully I've never heard of it in real life either.

tabatha wrote:

i agree that bringing in a law on helmets would do no harm.

You sound well convinced (aside: Cerebus, I take your point about dogmatism on all sides of the argument), but please look at this:

Analysis of results in Western Australia suggests the helmet legislation has:

* increased cyclist hospital admissions

From here. Now, this would seem to me to indicate that it is possible that a compulsory helmet law might in fact add to the queues in A&E. I outlined the possibility previously: that drivers may come to the conclusion that the cyclist is now less vulnerable, therefore they take more risks around them in traffic, and cyclists feel more confident and also take risks. So in return for less impact damage to the head in the event of an accident, we get in more accidents.

In this regard, helmets may be as much a placebo as a panacea, and the law fails in its' intent of making cyclists safer in the event of an accident.

rubadub

tabatha wrote:

you are probably one of those people who think "it will never happen to me". do what you will and take your chances.

Thank you, I will take my chances. I take chances every day, crossing the road, walking down dark alleys, cycling without a helmet. I certainly do not choose not to wear a helmet for vanity, you should see the abuse I get from schoolkids for having bags on my feet to keep rain off!

tabatha wrote:

cycling is indeed a dangerous hobby so we will protect ourselves where ever and how ever we can.

however you can? where do you draw the line? if it is such a dangerous hobby why do it at all, surely some other activity can keep you fit with out all this danger. Do you wear knee and elbow pads on the bike or do you deem them unnecessary?

GreeBo wrote:

The other forms of transport already have protection.
Motorbike = Helmet
Car = Seatbelt, The car itself.
Walking = Foothpath/Lights provides separation from the "danger"

Bicycle = sense, cycleways, lights, good brakes, serviced bike, elbow pads, knee pads, helmet. Some mandatory some optional.

GreeBo wrote:

Would you go on a motorbike without a helmet?

No, that would be against the law. If I was allowed to I would want a helmet anyway, I would also want full leathers which are not mandatory. I evaluate the risks myself and make my own choice. I know a few people who have fallen from motorbikes that had serious injuries. I have no doubt that a helmet is very worthwhile on a motorbike, some countries do not enforce it and I have no problem with that.

sobriquet wrote:

From here. Now, this would seem to me to indicate that it is possible that a compulsory helmet law might in fact add to the queues in A&E.

That is an interesting read. I usually take statistics with a pinch of salt since many times sides are biased by people with a vested interest, e.g. the many condradictory studies on drugs.

In this case I see no reason somebody would have the inclination to say helmets cause more accidents. Is there any vested interest that would gain from this? There are certainly people who would gain by saying they do offer great protection.