Complacent cylists urged to start using their heads -- and helmets

ThOnda

There are some ideas here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OfRiFylmiS0

It is not about helmets, but still good to see what could be done for active safet of cyclists.

ThOnda

By the way, you can choose a helmet, some people have to wear mandatory helmets without that priviledge...

Civilian_Target

Ghost Rider wrote:

Let me put it this way: I wear a helmet every day. Now if there were no motorists, I would never wear one. And I don't think that's remotely irrational.

Oh really? The only time I've ever been unfortunate enough to use my helmet, there were no other vehicles involved. I slipped on an oil spill in the rain and fell.

If I hadn't had a helmet, I might have taken the roundabout more slowly. I might not have, in which case I could be a veggie right now.

I wear a helmet but I suspect the immediate benefit of wearing a helmet on the roads is virtually nil, especially if you're not going fast. The campaign would be more effective if it was to get people to use lights.

jaycummins

i do enjoy wearing a helmet. i cant go over 20kmph without a helmet cos i'd just be so scared of falling off. with a helmet on i sort of know that if something knocks me off, i might break a leg or an arm but my head and brain will be grand. even if you are only going to work and you decie not to wear the helmet. when your family hear that you've hit your head against the curb and have brain damage, theyre not gonna think, well at least he didnt look like an idiot going into work that day. i always wear my helmet and im afraid of falling off when im not wearing one. to be honest tho, i dont wear it if im going to the shops cos i couldnt be botherd. its like 50metres away. wear you helmet guys.

rubadub

jaycummins wrote:

i cant go over 20kmph without a helmet cos i'd just be so scared of falling off. .

In other words the helmet gives you a sense of security so you take more risks. Some would say that it a bad thing since a helmet doesnt offer as much protection as you might think. This is one of the reasons why accidents may have increased in some countries with mandatory helmets.

jaycummins

i know what you mean, but all i am saying is i cant cycle properly unless i know my head is protected. im not saying i going swerving in between cars just because i have a helmet on. but i cycle better because im more confident with it on. so what if i do get in an accident, as long as its not a car hitting me from the side at 40kmph im basically fine and i know i wont have and damage to my brain. i do feel like an idiot tho when i see someone i know and im there with my matching helmet and cycling jersey. lol. its worht it tho.

Victor

You still risk face, neck and chest injuries that could be as serious as a blow to the skull.

Carawaystick

There are two main standards for bicycle helmets. Snell's is probably the tougher
"... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection"
Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation

The main test is a helmet is dropped a height of about 2m to simulate a fall off a stationary bike.

If you want to be protected at speeds above 20kmh, you need a motorbike helmet. These actually are designed to protect a human head at these speeds.

Jay, Why do you think you'ld fall if you weren't hit by a car?
Would you wear a back protector like motorcyclists do to protect your spine?
Do you wear gloves? to protect hands in a crash?
Do you wear face protection? a Bicycle helmet covers less than half your head.

You seem to place an awful lot of faith is a bicycle helmet which is not designed to protect you for what you think it does.

see http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, just lear about the limitations of them and accept them for what they are.

kenmc

TinyExplosions wrote:

Cheers for that -just ordered one! Damn good price

Me too. ordered it yesterday at 4pm got it this morning! That's a fantastic service, will be using Sugroo again for sure!

DITTKD

In a court situation, saying you were wearing a helmet will sound good to the judge.

Also, well designed helmets make you more aerodynamic than you would be without a helmet.

The first point there is the best argument I can think of for helmet usage, IMO.

davej

davej wrote:

I don't want to start another debate on the pros and cons of helmet wearing

Oh well

Perhaps we should be done with it and create a helmet debate sticky ?
I wear a helmet most of the time (always when commuting). If I'm going for a cycle in and around the local park I sometimes don't bother.

DITTKD - good point about the court scenario. I'm sure the absence/presence of high vis jacket and lights etc is all taken into account.

Maybe I have it totally wrong but I would imagine most deaths involving vehicles occur due to the cyclist being crushed to death / run over. A helmet isn't going to save you in this situation. So at best it might provide some protection in a moderate incident where something collides with the top of your head.

davej

TinyExplosions

kenmc wrote:

Me too. ordered it yesterday at 4pm got it this morning! That's a fantastic service, will be using Sugroo again for sure!

Mine still not arrived yet, but that's An Post, not Sugroo!

ceidefields

Look, a bicycle helmet is just another safety measure designed to reduce the risk of a life-threatening injury. Nobody ever claimed they were the perfect solution but they do protect the most important part of your anatomy. As for bashing your skull in as opposed to hurting your arm or leg, do we really have to spell it out that injuring your head could potentially be more serious? Bicycle helmets have the same function as a motorbike helmet. And yes, I also wear gloves when cycling and a jacket.

Anyone who has cycled more than 30 minutes in their lifetime would realize that most falls off bicycles don't involve cars but potholes, steep hills, gravel, oil, rain etc.

the_syco

davej wrote:

But is it a bit much to be bascially threatening people - "Wear a helmet or you'll end up a vegetable" ?

After 3 days in a coma, I woke up in a hostpal bed. You can actually see the indent into the helmet made by the windscreen wiper.

Victor wrote:

You still risk face, neck and chest injuries that could be as serious as a blow to the skull.

Oh, and if you're hit, you can break bones. Bones heal. Break your skull, and you're f**ked.

Mucco

DITTKD wrote:

In a court situation, saying you were wearing a helmet will sound good to the judge.

It's not really the judge that matters, as most compensation claims are settled. In the UK, a 25% reduction in compensation due to contributory negligence seems to be standard (for insurance companies), quite unfairly in my opinion. 50% of fatalities in London are due to being crushed by a HGV, I'm not sure if a lump of polystyrene would help in this situation.

ozchick

Isn't prevention better than cure?

I'm glad I live in a country where it is compulsory to wear helmets and will ALWAYS have mine on my noodle in Dublin.

Cycling isn't dangerous, but sharing roads with cars and trucks that ups the risks

I've heard of too many people who have had accidents through no fault of their own and helmets have saved them from fhead injury.

When the campaign was launched I had to laugh at the picture of the 16 year old picture wearing a helmet, halfway up her head, wouldn't have saved her face in a stack. Was going to contact the organisation, but was leaving the country that day

ThOnda

I was thinking about it a little and I have found very nice parallel:
helmet on bike equals seat belts in car

Seat belts won't prevent crashes, won't make you drive in more aggresive way, they won't make you feel you being better driver. They are mandatory, but you've got used to them and noone dares discussing they meaning in a car.

So, does somebody think that it could be nice parallel? Or reall parallel?

skidpatches

ThOnda wrote:

Seat belts won't prevent crashes, won't make you drive in more aggresive way, they won't make you feel you being better driver.

risk compensation suggests that they DO... the more you reduce the risk, the more people change their behaviour to increase it again.

All things being equal, a helmet will make you safer in one individual incident. Falling on your head with a helmet is better than falling on your head without one. Similarly wearing a high vis jacket will make you visible to a drunk, distracted or speeding motorist a few seconds sooner than if you were wearing dark clothing.

However, that's only half the story... It is my belief that helmets, high vis jackets, etc actually increase the risk to cyclists as a whole in the long term, because motorists increasingly expect them, and they don't take as much care as a result.

When I was growing up in the 1980s, I remember people driving more slowly at night because it was difficult to see pedestrians especially on country roads. These days, so many pedestrians wear high vis jackets, and funnily enough, so many motorists drive at their normal daytime speed. Motorists don't expect to see many pedestrians on country roads and expect those that do to be wearing high vis.

My fear is that with so many cyclists wearing high vis in dublin they will become required for everyone... when the real problem is speeding distracted motorists.

The best thing for the safety of cyclists collectively is for there to be more cyclists, wearing normal clothes, and no compulsion on helmets.

Take a look at these two photo blogs from copenhagen, where cycling is just another way of getting around... no special safety gear required.
http://copenhagengirlsonbikes.blogspot.com/
http://cycleliciousness.blogspot.com/

Mucco

ThOnda wrote:

I was thinking about it a little and I have found very nice parallel:
helmet on bike equals seat belts in car

Seat belts won't prevent crashes, won't make you drive in more aggresive way, they won't make you feel you being better driver.

Statistics suggest otherwise: when seatbelts became compulsory, motorist fatalities were reduced, but pedestrian and cyclist fatalities rose.

An interesting aside is that even before seatbelts were made compulsory, it was considered contributory negligence not to be wearing one (in the UK).

M

Civilian_Target

ozchick wrote:

Isn't prevention better than cure?

sigh Helmets don't prevent accidents. They almost certainly increase the risk of them. There's substantial research to suggest that drivers leave less road space (on average) to cyclists wearing helmets to those not wearing.

Cycling isn't dangerous, but sharing roads with cars and trucks that ups the risks

I've heard of too many people who have had accidents through no fault of their own and helmets have saved them from fhead injury.

That depends on how you cycle. If the road surface becomes unexpectedly slippery, then it's very dangerous. And thats when you really need the helmet on your noodle. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055128309

I've seen people wearing helmets die on the road, without anything going near their heads. I've never heard anything other than urban legends of helmets saving people in collisions with cars, nor can I recall any solid evidence on the subject, particularly when one considers the increased likelihood of an accident induced by wearing a helmet.

When the campaign was launched I had to laugh at the picture of the 16 year old picture wearing a helmet, halfway up her head, wouldn't have saved her face in a stack. Was going to contact the organisation, but was leaving the country that day

Yeah, you see that so often, I call it "a decorative helmet"

PeadarofAodh

I can't understand this argument at all! How can anyone argue it's a better idea not to wear a helmet than to wear one?! Of course it's not 100% assurance that you're not going to suffer a head injury but it's definitely going to cushion any impact unless your head ends up in a tyre/road sandwich!

I sometimes get lazy and don't wear it but I do try and remind myself of the possible consequences. A friend of mine who was making a short trip into UCD was forced to move closer to the kerb thanks to some asshole of a driver, caught his handlebar in the side of the gate and was launched over his handlebars, headbutting the road surface as his hands were to the side where his support had disappeared. Very nasty concussion and a night in the hospital on morphine for the agony he was in.

When I think of something like that I can't see how anyone could question how a helmet might help.

Civilian_Target

My argument is that it makes little difference either way. Sometimes I wear a helmet, but on nice warm days, or when I'm taking my violin, I don't.

Do you think that the asshole of a driver might have given more room to your friend if he hadn't been wearing a helmet? Do you think your friend would have cycled that close to the kerb without one? Helmets give us and those around us a psychological crutch that you'll be safer in an accident, wheras in fact a helmet, even when well fitted, only provides dubious protection in a small minority of accidents. I've landed on my helmet before. But I don't think I'd have taken the corner that floored me as quickly as I did without a helmet!

ThOnda

rp

Please be consistent: if you wear a helmet cycling, please wear one while walking, because studies indicate it will afford you more protection.
And if you don't wear one as a pedestrian, fair enough, it's your choice, but would you please stop banging on about wearing one on a bike then.

Morgan

ThOnda wrote:

Interesting poster - it the idea that all road users should wear helmets?

Civilian_Target

Well, since they only give statistics for all road users, one can only assume they want all road users to wear helmets

Also, 40% of cases of brain damage caused by accidents may have been preventable by wearing a helmet though, which indicates that helmets are ineffective in the majority of cases. Furthermore, they don't specifiy which type of helmet here, since cycling ones seem to be the most useless variety of helmet, surely the figures for these must be lower than 40%!

dub_skav

I have cycled for many years and have had a number of crashes, some bad some not so. I have not had a crash in many years though, as my awarenesss and care on the roads has gotten better.

I do not wear a helmet and even in my more careless years I never once hit my head in crashes, this is because I kept my chin to my chest and rolled to my shoulders or arms. This seems to me common sense and the people on here saying how they smacked their helmet off this or that sound like they should keep their heads off the ground/car rather than depending on the piece of foam on their head to save them.

rubadub

DITTKD wrote:

In a court situation, saying you were wearing a helmet will sound good to the judge.

It might at first, then a lawyer might cite studies and try and prove you were putting yourself at more risk by wearing the helmet.

PeadarofAodh wrote:

How can anyone argue it's a better idea not to wear a helmet than to wear one?! Of course it's not 100% assurance that you're not going to suffer a head injury but it's definitely going to cushion any impact unless your head ends up in a tyre/road sandwich!

You can check the many previous threads. Say wearing a helmet doubles your chances of safety in a fall, yet wearing it increases your chances of being hit by a motorist who gives you too little room- there is a crossover point where you are more at risk wearing the helmet.

I am sure most firemen are far better trained to avoid injury due to fire than me. I am also sure if I wanted to insure myself against burn injuries for a year I would get a lower rate than a fireman for the same year.

Morgan wrote:

Interesting poster - it the idea that all road users should wear helmets?

Probably not, but should be, pedestrians ARE road users, and helmets would protect drivers well, otherwise rally drivers would just stick with the relative pathetic protection a seatbelt provides. Pedestrians jaywalk and legally walk on the roads all the time, I know of a few people injured by cars, others stumbling drunk & sober.

DITTKD

rubadub wrote:

It might at first, then a lawyer might cite studies and try and prove you were putting yourself at more risk by wearing the helmet.

Well wouldn't that be interesting??!
Of course what I meant was that by wearing a helmet/PPE you’re showing that you’re putting some effort into being responsible and “safe” even if what you’re doing is, according to the statistics, a load of bollox.


As an aside people, arguing that not wearing a helmet ends up with you getting more space on the road, I don’t buy it. I’m sure the statistics are accurate, but basically you’re just blackmailing the motorist aren’t you?
I could jog backwards down the M50 and probably not get run over. Motorists will see me and move out of my way won’t they? But just because I can doesn’t mean I should.

Or am I missing something?

ThOnda

I like the way you think!