Do you use protection?

uberwolf

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I don't wear a helmet in conditions that I judge to be low-risk.

kinda like not wearing your seat belt on the way down to the shops?

cyclopath2001

uberwolf wrote:

kinda like not wearing your seat belt on the way down to the shops?

Not a good comparison, wearing a seatbelt is legally required.

A better comparison would be not wearing a helmet while walking across a road.

delta_bravo wrote:

1. Because I don't walk on a road.

Many people do, when crossing a road or if there is no footpath.

Ghost Rider

Well said.

delta_bravo wrote:

1. Because I don't walk on a road.
2. Because pedestrians dont weigh over 2 tonnes and travel at speeds of over 50kmph
3. Automobiles generally don't drive on footpaths.


Putting on a helmet should be as natural as putting on a seatbelt, it may be annoying but might save your life some time

onesoma

loads of people are missing the point here, and not reading, or choosing to misunderstand other peoples posts- particularly aldark's one.

everybody, read his post again and try hard to understand it and the pages he links to. it doesn't matter if a helmet saved you or a friend. that's not the point.

the way i see it, by concentrating on issues such as helmets, lights, reflectors, you take the emphasis and importance away from the fact that it is how you ride your bike that ultimately determines your safety.

basic training in bike riding skills is infinitely more beneficial than all the safety equipment in the world.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

Well said.

Not really.

It's incorrect say that pedestrians don't use roads. How do they cross without using a road? And they're very much at risk from cars that lose control and end up on the path.

might save your life some time

So wear one while walking?

youcancallmeal

Yawn :rolleyes:

Can't we just all agree it's a good plan to wear a helmet and leave it at that?

roadmanmad

Sorry, I disagree.

I think I am highly skilled, have nerves of steel, that my road and traffic discipline is top class.

I can however make a mistake. I know this because I have had 4 crashes in 35 years that were serious.

I wear a helmet.

There are too many variables that you are not in control of. Skills only addresses part what happens on the road. How many of you have spent a wasted youth, learning the experience of going over the handlebars. I did deliberately practice this, to experience the sensation and not to sieze up. I know that this 'SKILL' has saved my life twice. First of those incidents I was not wearing a helmet, the second time I was.

It might be as simple as when you have cycled as many years as I have and covered as many miles in a huge variety of conditions. Experience tells.

As I said earlier in this forum. Wear the helmet, who knows, it might work.

uberwolf

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Not a good comparison, wearing a seatbelt is legally required.

well I was working with your vision of being able to second guess when exactly the idiot is going to open the door in front of you.

Not that I can really claim to be any better, as I posted earlier, for years I used a wearing lycra = wearing helmet rule, otherwise I wouldn't

As being pointed out defensive riding is of far more use to you than a helmet. But you may as well be wearing it as not. My only problem with helmets is the cold days where it would be warmer not to wear the helmet as the vents are giving me brain freeze!

copacetic

onesoma wrote:

read his post again and try hard to understand it and the pages he links to. it doesn't matter if a helmet saved you or a friend. that's not the point.

maybe I am too stupid to understand but isn't this whole thread about wearing helmets (or not)? it is the point.

onesoma

daveym wrote:

maybe I am too stupid to understand but isn't this whole thread about wearing helmets (or not)? it is the point.

sure it is. i wear a helmet sometimes, sometimes i don't. mostly i do wear it.

a side point is that helmets do not live up to the beliefs of many people about their safety benefits. for example, to anyone who mentioned cars: helmets are designed for falls in which no other vehicles are involved.

cyclopath2001

youcancallme>al wrote:

Yawn :rolleyes: Can't we just all agree it's a good plan to wear a helmet and leave it at that?

Then there'd be nothing to discuss.

The question is when is the risk such that should one wear a helmet?

In many countries they're mostly worn only in competition.

GreeBo

Funnily enough I wear my cycling helmet when Im cycling.
I use a cars seat belt when Im in a car.

Much the same as I wear my golf shoes when Im playing golf....

Arguments against wearing it due to it not being as safe as you think are, IMO, akin to not wearing a bullet proof vestin Bazra;

1) It slows you down making you more likely to be hit
2) It doesnt protect you from lots of different shots, head, armpit, leg
3) its uncomfortable

Would you not wear a BPV in a gun hazardous situation?

Ghost Rider

Of course you're right on both counts - but only from a hair-splittingly narrow point of view. Pedestrians do use roads. And cars do sometimes mount pavements. However - and it pains me as much to have make such obvious points as I'm sure it does anyone to have to read them - pedestrians don't use roads anything like as much as bikes do, and most car-related accidents take place on roads, not on pavements.

To conclude, to suggest that it would be logically consistent to wear a helmet while walking is to fail to acknoweldge the role of risk assessment in deciding whether or not to wear a helmet when cycling.

Personally, I adjudge most situations in which I cycle to be situations of significant risk, and that's why I always wear a helmet. Just getting up on the bike and putting my feet into the toe-clips (as I always do) incurs a risk, as far as I'm concerned. If I cycled off-road, I might feel differently about it, because the ground under me might be softer. Even still, I'd have to think about it.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Not really.

It's incorrect say that pedestrians don't use roads. How do they cross without using a road? And they're very much at risk from cars that lose control and end up on the path.

So wear one while walking?

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

To conclude, to suggest that it would be logically consistent to wear a helmet while walking is to fail to acknoweldge the role of risk assessment in deciding whether or not to wear a helmet when cycling.

Is there a factual/statistical basis for the risk asessment or is it a matter of personal judgement?

uberwolf

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Is there a factual/statistical basis for the risk asessment or is it a matter of personal judgement?

Pure fact based I'd say, given the new cateye bike computer which as well as giving you your lottery numbers for the evening also gives a 98% accurate reading of the likely requirement for a helmet on your next spin.

I certainly have seen conflicting reports on the usefulness of helmets. I'm confident however that they prevent more damage than they cause. And any attempt to second guess the 'idiot opening his door in front of you' factor is doomed to failure (unless you get the latest cateye)

cyclopath2001

uberwolf wrote:

Pure fact based I'd say, given the new cateye bike computer which as well as giving you your lottery numbers for the evening also gives a 98% accurate reading of the likely requirement for a helmet on your next spin.

What model Cat-Eye computer is it?

Ghost Rider

What could they be except judgement calls? I don't think they substantially differ in quality from any of the hundreds of other risk assessments we make every day of our lives.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Is there a factual/statistical basis for the risk asessment or is it a matter of personal judgement?

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

What could they be except judgement calls? I don't think they substantially differ in quality from any of the hundreds of other risk assessments we make every day of our lives.

I agree & therefore I think that helmet-wearers should respect the personal decisions of non helmet-wearers and vice-versa.

Ghost Rider

Not sure whose point you're contesting. I never insisted helmets should be mandatory.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I agree & therefore I think that helmet-wearers should respect the personal decisions of non helmet-wearers and vice-versa.

tampopo

New to the boards and I saw this thread before I joined. Came across it again now...

When I saw the heading I thought there'd me more non-helmeted folks than helmeted. So I was very surprised to see all the people advocating wearing a helmet.

It made me consider my own behaviour, no helmet, no lights, and er, no brakes either (wheel was rubbing and catching the brakeblock so loosened it)

So, I must at least get the brakes fixed, that's my first task. I was sorry that when Hector Greys closed down and they were flogging everything off for a euro that I didn't get a pair of reflective cat collars for round me ankles cos they'd be great for cycling at night....

rubadub

Originally Posted by Morgan
I wear a helmet while mtbing or on my road bike. Never while commuting

daymobrew wrote:

As a helmet wearer, I am curious why you don't wear one while commuting?
I think I can understand why you wear it mtbing - uneven terrain, etc
IMO commuting has its own dangers - hard, heavy vehicles, jaywalking pedestrians, uneven terrain.

I would be the same as Morgan. I would not wear one on the roads but would MTBing. The same would go if I was in a normal car commuting, or going rally driving or on quads, in which case you are putting yourself at more risk for the sake of entertainment.

I used to just feel I didn't need a helmet commuting, I find them uncomfortable and sometimes a distraction. Then I read the numerous studies posted in the previous threads here saying how sometimes they have led to (apparently) more injuries.

What interested me a lot was the thread title changed from "protection" to "helmet", as though it is the only choice. I do wear protection, I am nearly always in long sleeves and trousers and wear gloves. I have fallen a few times where they saved me from cuts. Yet I will not start saying "I tore my jeans, lucky my leg didnt have to amputated I could have been crippled". I guarantee you a human head is harder to crack than a helmet.
Another protection is full on elbow pads & knee pads, the only protection I really have considered getting for my commute, how many wear this. In another thread it seemed people only worried about their heads and had no fear of being crippled.

Also some studies have said that it is far more beneficial to wear a helmet in a car, offering far more protection than a seatbelt would, I think the figures were 7 times more protection than on a bike. So do any of you wear helmets in cars? if not why not?

cyclopath2001 made good points about pedestrians too. I would be interested in any stats on head injuries per mile walking vs head injuries per mile cycling. These may be a bit skewed due to the huge amount of head injuries while people are drunk- but this would then raise another question, wearing drinking helmets (seriously, I know many people who have had serious injuries while drunk)

GreeBo

rubadub wrote:

I do wear protection, I am nearly always in long sleeves and trousers and wear gloves. I have fallen a few times where they saved me from cuts.

Couldnt I then argue for naked cycling as sometimes clothes/laces can get caught in chains/pedals and cause accidents?


Also isnt the study of helmets being more dangerous biased to begin with?
People dont go to the doctors/hospital and say "hey, I had an accident but Im fine, my helmet saved me"
They only go when there is a problem, thus swaying the stats, IMO.

Johnny Storm

I wear a helmet in an attempt to get my kids to wear theirs.
My son got concussed a few years ago aged about 6-ish after colliding with another kid on their bikes. Loss of consciousness, vomiting, couldn't focus his eyes. Very scary but he was OK by the time he arrived at hospital.

rubadub

GreeBo wrote:

Couldnt I then argue for naked cycling as sometimes clothes/laces can get caught in chains/pedals and cause accidents?

Well you would have to weigh it up. I wear trouser bands to potect both my clothes and the risk of them being caught in pedals. Also they are reflective.
I also ensure my laces are not too long. In my job I sometimes have some drilling to do, I weigh up the option of wearing safety glasses, will they obscure my vision and risk danger to my hands, or is the risk to my eyes more.

I do think I would be more at risk with no/skimpy clothes and no shoes.

GreeBo wrote:

Also isnt the study of helmets being more dangerous biased to begin with?
People dont go to the doctors/hospital and say "hey, I had an accident but Im fine, my helmet saved me"
They only go when there is a problem, thus swaying the stats, IMO.

Some studies were showing that were more injuries per year in countries where helmets were made mandatory, even though the number of cyclists had actually dropped.
This may seem to make no sense but are many reasons this could happen. People will feel safer/invincible and cycle more dangerously (like a mountainbiker with a full face helmet and full armour). The cars will take more risk/less respect for safety of cyclists thinking "ah hes wearing a helmet, if he falls he is grand, I will risk overtaking him closely"

There was a study where a guy measured cars passing distances, he was given more room when wearing no helmets. The people given the most distance were women, they were probably percieved as less experienced, like a kid would.

I am the same on cycletracks, if I see kids I slow down completely, they are more liable to do anything.

So your safest attire is probably a helmet covered with a womans wig so it looks you have no helmet and are a woman. Wear a barbie coat and they will think you are a little girl and not go near you!

Mucco

Ahh, the good old helmet argument returns, just like the daffodils and warm weather.
Reliable stats on the benefit of helmets are very difficult to obtain. One study showed the helmets are clearly beneficial in reducing head injuries, however, someone used the same study to show that helmets also reduce the incidence of heart attacks!
You can look to Australia to see the 'benefit' of compulsory helmets.

As is mentioned above, there are benefits in wearing helmets while walking, driving, fixing roofs, but do we ask if people should do so?

M

blorg

Mucco wrote:

One showed the helmets are clearly beneficial in reducing head injuries, however, someone used the same study to show that helmets also reduce the incidence of heart attacks!

Well that's even more benefit then! I'm going to have a dozen buttered eggs cooked in bacon fat for dinner. Wearing my helmet of course.

cyclopath2001

Whatever about cycle-helmets, a number of US states are repealing their mandatory motor-cycle helmet laws. In quite a number of states they're only mandatory for learners or younger riders. Details here