Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **
Options
Comments
-
The problem is you're not a moderate on this regardless how you want to paint your views (I'm not too) -- for one, you're going around accusing people of "peer pressure" when anecdotal evidence on a population level is presented but anecdotal evidence on an individual level is ok...
Can you please explain how one is ok but the other is not?
And who here has adopted the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home?
You've also tried to claim that I had given you advice but so-far you've not being forthcoming on where and when I did that, and droidus has already pointed to other issues with your posts.
I've got that feeling like I've been watching a film, nipped out to the loo for a minute, and have come back in to find the plot has changed dramatically and without explanation while I've been gone. I can't relate any of your statements above to the plot of this thread so far, was I really gone that long? Did logic die? Surely not, that was one of the leading characters there for a while, why was that killed off?0 -
Generally snow would be a softer surface than Tarmac roads but there is an extensive statistical study done on helmets for skiers and snowboarders here with neck injury discussed too.
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7486/281
Conclusion from a very long article, based on ambulance and air ambulance rescues from helmet and non helmet wearing on Canadian slopes.
"What is already known on this topic
Helmets protect bicyclists against head injuries
Evidence is limited on the effectiveness of helmets against head and neck injuries in skiers and snowboarders
What this study adds
Helmets may reduce the risk of head injuries in skiers and snowboarders by 29% to 56%
Evidence is limited on the relation between helmet use and the risk of neck injury"0 -
chakattack wrote: »There is an surprising lack of "my helmet caused my brain to rotate" casual stories floating about the boards cycling forum
Hmmm...I wonder.....
You don't tend to remember if your brain is rotated quickly enough, simply because you are knocked out. :cool:
Here are some examples of rapid brain rotation...
0 -
I stopped to think..what the hell is a rotational brain injury and what is the mechanism that could make it more likely with a helmeted head.
First search..opened wikipedia and it seems that the original finding from 1987 (Curnow) has since been refuted by a more recent study which found the opposite effect. This makes sense to me...in 1987, helmets used much thicker, more compressible foam causing greater deceleration.
An experimental study by McIntosh et al. tested Curnow’s hypothesis that bicycle helmets increase angular acceleration during a crash, and found that they actually reduced both linear and angular acceleration by a considerable margin.[103][46]
Food for thought.0 -
chakattack wrote: »
Have you seen how Keep her lit took your style of "advice" to its logical conclusion? :cool:
No. But logical conclusions around here often streach things.
I've got that feeling like I've been watching a film, nipped out to the loo for a minute, and have come back in to find the plot has changed dramatically and without explanation while I've been gone. I can't relate any of your statements above to the plot of this thread so far, was I really gone that long? Did logic die? Surely not, that was one of the leading characters there for a while, why was that killed off?
Ok, fair enough that when I said "You've also tried to claim that I had given you advice but so-far you've not being forthcoming" I was mixing up what you and what Keep_Her_Lit had said, but....
You did say:Trying to convince people via the argument "you don't need a helmet because look at all those other cyclists over there who don't wear a helmet" is trying to bend people to your point of view via peer pressure. That, to me, is dictating to people, though I could think of worse things to call it, what would you call it?
You seem to have a problem with the argument "you don't need a helmet because look at all those other cyclists over there who don't wear a helmet", but you have no problem with the argument "look at me I wore a helmet and crashed and my head was ok, so you should wear a helmet".
One side "bend people to your point of view via peer pressure" and is "dictating" to people but the pro-helmet side is apprently doing none of these things.
Then the first time I chalange you on the above, you try to claim I don't like "taking moderate views into account" and you are just a fan of free will and want people to be just "informed of the information available".
You have yet to explain why you don't seem to like information about the Netherlands -- where there are more cyclists, a tiny percentages of helmet use and the lowest serious injury and death rates.... Is that not part of getting people informed of the information available?
You also said that "Within that you seem to be concentrating on nothing except the fact that I'm not actually adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home" ...but you don't seem to want to say who here has or is shouting at people to leave their helmets at home? ...maybe because nobody here is "shouting at people to leave their helmets at home"? But that does not fit into your picture of the anti-helmet camp as some kind of extremists.
You then top it off by liking my debating style to using a large hammer, but you're the one who spends so much time ranting and attacking the opposing view rather than dealing with the points people make.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suspect that these studies focused in on downhill skiers/boarders, a fairly extreme sport, equivalent to DH biking. A more representative study would look at the risk reduction for cross-country skiers, as that is closer to most peoples cycling (I've commuted on x-country skies, without a helmet)."Helmets may reduce the risk of head injuries in skiers and snowboarders by 29% to 56%"0 -
The authors are dismissive of the possibility of risk compensation. However, it has subsequently been demonstrated that child cyclists often ride more riskily and suffer more crashes when wearing a cycle helmet (Mok et al, 2004) and that adults are more likely to ride on busier roads if helmeted (Gregory, Inwood and Sexton, 2003).
The key word in that is 'children'. You can tell a child that a jacket makes them invincible and they will think it does - I remember my cousin donning a spider man costume and jumping off a high wall resulting in a broken ankle, he would never have attempted that without the costume. I am talking about adults and I stand by my viewpoint that most adults don't alter their perception of risk because they have a helmet on.To apply your own earlier logic to your own circumstances, here is something to consider: For those who are debating the dangers of MMA, get your friend to put on a pair of sparring mitts and punch you in the face, then hold your head out again and tell them not to punch you at all. If you are in any doubt (about the dangers of MMA), I'm sure this simple test will clarify.
I really don't understand what you are getting at there. If you said to wear a cup or not wear a cup in a fight that would make more sense. There are plenty of incidents where someone throws a high inside leg kick and it hits the cup, it wouldn't have hit the testicles but because the cup is there it gets clipped and in turn puts the force on the testicles - its quite painful trust me. Plus, having a cup in there can also cause problems when grappling but most fighters wouldn't even contemplate fighting without one, even though it can sometimes be more of a hinderance - it is there for protection and I would rather have it there than not.Presumably you are aware of the risks of any martial arts contest which involves fighting (personally I've seen the odd broken bone, some eye injuries, some torn muscles, and one particularly nasty gash to the head that resulted in the loudest screams of pain I've ever had the displeasure to hear an adult utter)
Most sports have associated risks, some more than others. I have seen a lot worse than that and have suffered a particularly nasty injury myself, ironically it was down to plain old bad luck than the sport itself! There is a difference however, when you are fighting you are primed to react and you are tensed to take a shot. When you are on a bike you could be out for hours and its impossible to keep up that kind of sensory focus. The more you tire, the more focus you lose and the greater chance of making a mistake, this applies to any sport and that is why I wear a helmet.Just because someone perceives something as certain, or highly likely, to result in serious harm, be that fighting in a martial arts contest or not wearing a helmet, does not mean that they are right or that the object of their disdain is some kind of reckless idiot.
I agree and I said each to their own.0 -
The key word in that is 'children'. You can tell a child that a jacket makes them invincible and they will think it does - I remember my cousin donning a spider man costume and jumping off a high wall resulting in a broken ankle, he would never have attempted that without the costume. I am talking about adults and I stand by my viewpoint that most adults don't alter their perception of risk because they have a helmet on. .
And it says: "and that adults are more likely to ride on busier roads if helmeted (Gregory, Inwood and Sexton, 2003"0 -
The McIntosh study is in press, so it can't really be commented on. In fact, it probably shouldn't be on the Wikipedia page until it is published. I think there's a small editing skirmish going on there right now.chakattack wrote: »I stopped to think..what the hell is a rotational brain injury and what is the mechanism that could make it more likely with a helmeted head.
First search..opened wikipedia and it seems that the original finding from 1987 (Curnow) has since been refuted by a more recent study which found the opposite effect. This makes sense to me...in 1987, helmets used much thicker, more compressible foam causing greater deceleration.
An experimental study by McIntosh et al. tested Curnow’s hypothesis that bicycle helmets increase angular acceleration during a crash, and found that they actually reduced both linear and angular acceleration by a considerable margin.[103][46]
Food for thought.
There are other more recent papers than Corner or Curnow that found helmets increasing angular acceleration:
King, AI; King, H; Yang, LZ; Hardy, W; Viano, DC. Is head injury caused by linear or angular acceleration? Paper presented at IRCOBI Conference, Lisbon. 2003.
St Clair, VJM; Chinn, BP. Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury. Published Project Report PPR 213 TRL Limited. April 2007.
I assume the McIntosh study will be looked at in detail by the usual interested parties.0 -
monument wrote:You seem to have a problem with the argument "you don't need a helmet because look at all those other cyclists over there who don't wear a helmet", but you have no problem with the argument "look at me I wore a helmet and crashed and my head was ok, so you should wear a helmet".
One side "bend people to your point of view via peer pressure" and is "dictating" to people but the pro-helmet side is apprently doing none of these things.
Then the first time I chalange you on the above, you try to claim I don't like "taking moderate views into account" and you are just a fan of free will and want people to be just "informed of the information available".
You have yet to explain why you don't seem to like information about the Netherlands -- where there are more cyclists, a tiny percentages of helmet use and the lowest serious injury and death rates.... Is that not part of getting people informed of the information available?
You also said that "Within that you seem to be concentrating on nothing except the fact that I'm not actually adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home" ...but you don't seem to want to say who here has or is shouting at people to leave their helmets at home? ...maybe because nobody here is "shouting at people to leave their helmets at home"? But that does not fit into your picture of the anti-helmet camp as some kind of extremists.
You then top it off by liking my debating style to using a large hammer, but you're the one who spends so much time ranting and attacking the opposing view rather than dealing with the points people make.
Firstly, jaysus! I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought that perhaps you had misinterpreted some of my earlier posts to say something other than what I'd intended because I'd conveyed my points poorly. So, I re-read them, and still I find myself reading your post above and thinking "what the fcuk?". How you draw your conclusions above is beyond me, yet here we are. You are determined to portray me as the polar opposite of your views despite what I've written, even attributing posts written by others to me to fuel your apparent indignation. And I'm the one ranting? Jaysus! Again.
You've apparently chosen to utterly ignore these posts already so I expect this to fall on deaf ears but here goes anyway, here are some of my posts in this thread so far:
* here - summary: I'm not convinced by the argument that helmets are necessary, and I have reservations about the design and testing of modern helmets. Let individuals decide for themselves, we are all grown-ups.
* here - summary: that argument that wearing a helmet is "common sense" is flawed.
* here and here - summary: Ah heyor, leave them that doesn't like helmets alone.
* here and here - summary: Cycling is not the dangerous activity that some people claim, and those making such claims are often unwilling to discuss the topic.
* here and here - summary: The evidence against wearing a helmet is strong, less lecturing and more discussion please. (You may need to sit down before re-reading those, they seemed to make you angry last time round).
Are you bored yet? I'm bored. In your post above you are attributing opinions to me which directly contradict what I myself have written in my previous posts. In your seemingly blind desire to find a villain here that you can rail against you are trying to reduce the thread to some kind of tit for tat nonsense. And against someone who is quite skeptical about the benefits of helmets and has stated that more than once already. I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make, if any.
It's petty I know but I can't help repeating this quote again, I just regret that the Internet is unable to provide a facepalm image large enough to paste immediately after it:monument wrote:]you're the one who spends so much time ranting and attacking the opposing view rather than dealing with the points people make.0 -
Advertisement
-
RoboRat wrote:Most sports have associated risks, some more than others. I have seen a lot worse than that and have suffered a particularly nasty injury myself, ironically it was down to plain old bad luck than the sport itself! There is a difference however, when you are fighting you are primed to react and you are tensed to take a shot. When you are on a bike you could be out for hours and its impossible to keep up that kind of sensory focus. The more you tire, the more focus you lose and the greater chance of making a mistake, this applies to any sport and that is why I wear a helmet.
In your earlier post where you talked of someone hitting you on the head with and without a helmet you seemed to be suggesting that wearing a helmet is a logical choice and by extension therefore that not wearing a helmet is illogical. I can't interpret your post any other way.
You yourself willingly participate in a sport, MMA, where the risk of injury is high. Yes you can wear safety gear, but the "safest" choice is to not put yourself in the path of someone trying to physically dominate you in the first place, you choose otherwise and that's a choice that you are entirely responsible for so you obviously see the risks involved as being sufficiently low not to deter you. You see this as a logical choice (so do I, indicentally) while many people would see it as illogical. When it comes to the wearing of cycling helmets you appear to be putting yourself into that latter camp. I don't understand how you can find wearing a helmet so clearcut a choice that you are able to glibly convey it with your "hurley to the head" analogy. I don't see it as clearcut at all, much like the risks involved in competition fighting are not clearcut either. Cycling is not inherently dangerous, no-one is actively out to hurt you while you are cycling, and while accidents happen they happen in all sports, MMA included, but for cycling the risks of harm are all too often elevated to the level of a certainty.
So while I'm not taking issue with your wearing of a helmet (how could I, I wear one myself for a start), I take issue with your apparent implication that it's a *necessary* precaution to avoid serious injury.0 -
bad2dabone wrote: »That's the Giro Air Attack helmet, I think it's a very nice looking helmet and I'll be picking one up as soon as i see one for sale. Giro say it's to be used for both TT and Road events. Tejay van Garderen wore it on the Col D'eze TT in Paris-Nice too.
Slightly off topic again for a moment...
By coincidence I received the latest catalogue from RoseBikes yesterday and they now stock that helmet here.
It's not cheap, at 199.95euro, but it's certainly an interesting design. Giro themselves don't seem to be saying much about it being a good alternative to a TT helmet though. Some reviews I've read talk if it being more aerodynamic than a regular road helmet (as the expense of venting) but I've not seen figures comparing it to a TT helmet.0 -
You have yet to explain why you don't seem to like information about the Netherlands -- where there are more cyclists, a tiny percentages of helmet use and the lowest serious injury and death rates.... Is that not part of getting people informed of the information available?
I'll explain my issue with the use of data from the netherlands in an argument concerning helmet use in Ireland. We're in Ireland right? SPECIFICITY- They have a network of seggregated cycling facilities. We have poorly designed facilities and generally taking the road is safest.
- They have a flat country (lower speeds). We have varied terrain. Highish speeds are still perfectly possible by everyday utility cyclists in Ireland (Patrick Street, Cork..Christchurch, Dublin).
- They have a strong cycling culture and driver behaviour to match.
- They ride old, heavy utility bikes. We ride 1000 euro racers/hybrids bought on the bike to work scheme.
Back to Keep her lit's excellent observation..in his 29 years of commuting would he have fared better (or at least not worse) had he followed your "advice" to not wear a helmet? He hit his helmeted head 4 times and suffered no facial or head injury.0 - They have a network of seggregated cycling facilities. We have poorly designed facilities and generally taking the road is safest.
-
This thread was going so well, with reasoned debate coming from both sides. It was refreshingly free of outbursts of people deeply, pseudo-religiously, entrenched in either extreme of the spectrum
That's not to suggest an actual spectrum exists where the moderate view is de facto the most reasonable. It's simply a description.
It has degenerated into a petty anti-helmet tirade by a small number of posters who are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge that a helmet may be a useful thing in extremely rare instances, instances that are mostly avoidable, but are possibilities.
They point to diffuse axonal injuries as reasons why helmets are potentially going to exacerbate a problem. Scholarly opinion is divided on such opinions, but in many cases weaknesses are noted in the research as dai's occur in test cases without a helmet too, and often the difference is negligible. It is an extremely weak argument against them.
They also suggest that helmet wearing discourages cycling uptake. While it is true that many studies have shown that this is used as an excuse by women in particular, often it is just an excuse. The greatest barrier is the perception of danger, which will not be addressed by discouraging the use of safety equipment, whether it's necessary or not.
Most research boils down to:
Helmets are useful in a narrow band of circumstances, which you are unlikely to find yourself in.
Wearing helmets has a negligible benefit on a population scale.
Wearing helmets has very few physical drawbacks for the individual; some contentious examples exist.
Wearing helmets is likely to be unnecessary.0 -
dave_o_brien wrote: »This thread was going so well, with reasoned debate coming from both sides. It was refreshingly free of outbursts of people deeply, pseudo-religiously, entrenched in either extreme of the spectrum
That's not to suggest an actual spectrum exists where the moderate view is de facto the most reasonable. It's simply a description.
It has degenerated into a petty anti-helmet tirade by a small number of posters who are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge that a helmet may be a useful thing in extremely rare instances, instances that are mostly avoidable, but are possibilities.
They point to diffuse axonal injuries as reasons why helmets are potentially going to exacerbate a problem. Scholarly opinion is divided on such opinions, but in many cases weaknesses are noted in the research as dai's occur in test cases without a helmet too, and often the difference is negligible. It is an extremely weak argument against them.
They also suggest that helmet wearing discourages cycling uptake. While it is true that many studies have shown that this is used as an excuse by women in particular, often it is just an excuse. The greatest barrier is the perception of danger, which will not be addressed by discouraging the use of safety equipment, whether it's necessary or not.
Most research boils down to:
Helmets are useful in a narrow band of circumstances, which you are unlikely to find yourself in.
Wearing helmets has a negligible benefit on a population scale.
Wearing helmets has very few physical drawbacks for the individual; some contentious examples exist.
Wearing helmets is likely to be unnecessary.
So you admit that "a helmet may be a useful thing in extremely rare instances". But you then dismiss dai as "extremely weak argument against them".
To me something that may be useful in an extremely rare instance is a weak argument for helmets.
All that has happened is that some people believe the weak arguments of dai, increased diameter of head and risk compensation behaviour stack up as more important than the weak argument of "may be useful in an extremely rare instance".
You bemoan this as a petty anti-helmet tirade.
Unfortunately, this debate has been ever thus, people on both sides unwilling to debate fairly. As has pointed out though you will find an awful lot of fairly derisory and condescending comments from the pro side, often more so than the anti side.
Edit: To be fair though the main protagonists on this thread are being very patient with eachother, fair play.0 -
dave_o_brien wrote: »It has degenerated into a petty anti-helmet tirade by a small number of posters who are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge that a helmet may be a useful thing in extremely rare instances, instances that are mostly avoidable, but are possibilities.
Funny, that's not what I see at all. Perhaps I missed it, so can you please point out where someone stated a helmet is never useful under any circumstances.
If you can't do that then I think this is a text book example of a straw man argument.0 -
So you admit that "a helmet may be a useful thing in extremely rare instances". But you then dismiss dai as "extremely weak argument against them".
To me something that may be useful in an extremely rare instance is a weak argument for helmets.
All that has happened is that some people believe the weak arguments of dai, increased diameter of head and risk compensation behaviour stack up as more important than the weak argument of "may be useful in an extremely rare instance".
You bemoan this as a petty anti-helmet tirade.
Unfortunately, this debate has been ever thus, people on both sides unwilling to debate fairly. As has pointed out though you will find an awful lot of fairly derisory and condescending comments from the pro side, often more so than the anti side.
Edit: To be fair though the main protagonists on this thread are being very patient with eachother, fair play.
I agree about the patience thing, well done all!
But if you had read my previous posts, I've consistently said that the benefits of wearing a helmet are negligible, and logically, people shouldn't feel the need to bother.
I'm taking issue with the extremely aggressive anti-helmet posters who are failing to acknowledge the validity of the other sides points.
On balance, there is no compelling argument suggesting that they are of any great benefit, but similarly, no compelling argument suggesting that they are of any great disadvantage.
As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is not to force people to wear them, or to rally against their use, but highlight how safe cycling is in general, and point out the functional limitations of helmets. If people understand the arguments better, then let them make a decision.0 -
HivemindXX wrote: »Funny, that's not what I see at all. Perhaps I missed it, so can you please point out where someone stated a helmet is never useful under any circumstances.
If you can't do that then I think this is a text book example of a straw man argument.
You're now misrepresenting what I said. I said they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that helmets are useful in rare circumstances. How can I show you where they have refused to say something?
You are also pushing me to a position where it seems like I am defending helmets, which I deeply resent. I am defending proper information being provided without personal bias affecting the discussion. Some of that information is that helmets can provide protection in a narrow band of circumstances, ones which rarely befall cyclists, fortunately. They are not beyond the realm of belief, so if an individual decides to do so, they should be free of any guilt that they are not "setting a good example", to use a phrase a previous poster absurdly put forward.0 -
So in summary of 20 pages-
Wear a helmet if you like, don't bother if you don't want to.0 -
In your earlier post where you talked of someone hitting you on the head with and without a helmet you seemed to be suggesting that wearing a helmet is a logical choice and by extension therefore that not wearing a helmet is illogical. I can't interpret your post any other way.
You yourself willingly participate in a sport, MMA, where the risk of injury is high. Yes you can wear safety gear, but the "safest" choice is to not put yourself in the path of someone trying to physically dominate you in the first place, you choose otherwise and that's a choice that you are entirely responsible for so you obviously see the risks involved as being sufficiently low not to deter you. You see this as a logical choice (so do I, indicentally) while many people would see it as illogical. When it comes to the wearing of cycling helmets you appear to be putting yourself into that latter camp. I don't understand how you can find wearing a helmet so clearcut a choice that you are able to glibly convey it with your "hurley to the head" analogy. I don't see it as clearcut at all, much like the risks involved in competition fighting are not clearcut either. Cycling is not inherently dangerous, no-one is actively out to hurt you while you are cycling, and while accidents happen they happen in all sports, MMA included, but for cycling the risks of harm are all too often elevated to the level of a certainty.
So while I'm not taking issue with your wearing of a helmet (how could I, I wear one myself for a start), I take issue with your apparent implication that it's a *necessary* precaution to avoid serious injury.
OK fair enough, see where the confusion comes from now. Firstly, I don't think that cycling is a dangerous sport and there are plenty of occasions whereby cycling safely and sensibly will ensure that you are not put danger so I understand the point you were making now. I do feel however that there are situations beyond your control and because of those situations I wear a helmet. I know that this will only protect my head and will leave all my other limbs susceptible to injury but they are in most cases fixable so its a risk I am willing to take.
I can only speak from experience, but I know 2 people who are alive today because they had a helmet on when they had an accident. Both accidents were not their fault and completely unavoidable (unless they didn't bother to go cycling but then you are going into a myriad of variables). In both accidents the cyclist suffered extreme head trauma and both would have died if they were not wearing a helmet (they were traveling at speed and landed on their heads).
That is just my viewpoint and I completely understand if anybody else thinks differently.
In regards to MMA, I agree that I see the risks involved sufficiently low, of course you can get injured, bruised, black eyes etc but to be honest I have received much worse playing football. The reason I see it as illogical not to wear a helmet is because with MMA, there are not as many variables as cycling. You don't have to worry about erratic drivers, bad weather conditions, other cyclists, pedestrians, potholes and even your own equipment. Its just you and your opponent and thats all you need to focus on but with cycling there are so many other variables and that is why I feel the need to have the added backup of wearing a helmet.
As I said, I am in the helmet camp but everyone is entitled to do what they like and I apologise if my posts appeared to demean people who chose to not wear one.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 71143
You can perhaps see why some posters get frustrated when "another helmet thread" is startedSo in summary of 20 pages-
Wear a helmet if you like, don't bother if you don't want to.
Anyway, I think there's enough information in this one for it to become the "definitive helmet thread", to which future helmet discussions can be pointed, so I've updated the OP, changed the title and will put a link from the FAQs0 -
dave_o_brien wrote: »You're now misrepresenting what I said. I said they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that helmets are useful in rare circumstances. How can I show you where they have refused to say something?
I am not misrepresenting what you said at all. You even restated it in your reply. You claim, quite clearly and unequivocally, that people are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that helmets may be useful in some circumstances. You have no proof of this whatsoever.
Some people haven't explicity stated that helmets may prevent injury in some circumstances and you shoehorn that in to a claim that they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that? This is very poor reasoning.
I may as well say that people believe magic pixie dust will protect them instead of helmets because nobody has stated it won't.0 -
dave_o_brien wrote: »You're now misrepresenting what I said. I said they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that helmets are useful in rare circumstances. How can I show you where they have refused to say something?
You are also pushing me to a position where it seems like I am defending helmets, which I deeply resent. I am defending proper information being provided without personal bias affecting the discussion. Some of that information is that helmets can provide protection in a narrow band of circumstances, ones which rarely befall cyclists, fortunately. They are not beyond the realm of belief, so if an individual decides to do so, they should be free of any guilt that they are not "setting a good example", to use a phrase a previous poster absurdly put forward.
Aah. Ok if it helps I accept that within a narrow range of impact energies a cycle helmet or other form of head covering, of the right size and worn properly with the straps correctly adjusted, may offer some protection.
However, in most cases we are talking about preventing wounds to the scalp. My view is that in most collision circumstances that are likely to result in death or debilitating brain injury, eg crashes involving moving motor vehicles, they are unlikely to be of benefit in preventing brain injury.
Bear in mind that I also accept a much greater protective effect for car-occupant seatbelts. However the available evidence in my view supports the hypothesis that, when adult drivers start wearing seatbelts, their behaviour changes in a manner that overtakes and overwhelms even this greater protection.0 -
HivemindXX wrote: »I am not misrepresenting what you said at all. You even restated it in your reply. You claim, quite clearly and unequivocally, that people are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that helmets may be useful in some circumstances. You have no proof of this whatsoever.
Some people haven't explicity stated that helmets may prevent injury in some circumstances and you shoehorn that in to a claim that they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that? This is very poor reasoning.
I may as well say that people believe magic pixie dust will protect them instead of helmets because nobody has stated it won't.
Yes, you may as well. Because that is what implication leads us to. There has been much discussion about the effectiveness of magic pixie dust's ability to prevent injury in this thread. It has been the point of the thread, in fact. People have come on and instead of acknowledging the limited use of magic pixie dust, instead point out that some studies show that magic pixie dust actually may increase your risk of DAI's, and besides, it's a gender barrier to equal use of bicycles. That's a fair representation of the flaws inherent in my statement.
When monument mentioned bringing arguments to their logical conclusion, I think this is the kind of post he was referring to.galwaycyclist wrote: »Aah. Ok if it helps I accept that within a narrow range of impact energies a cycle helmet or other form of head covering, of the right size and worn properly with the straps correctly adjusted, may offer some protection.
However, in most cases we are talking about preventing wounds to the scalp. My view is that in most collision circumstances that are likely to result in death or debilitating brain injury, eg crashes involving moving motor vehicles, they are unlikely to be of benefit in preventing brain injury.
Bear in mind that I also accept a much greater protective effect for car-occupant seatbelts. However the available evidence in my view supports the hypothesis that, when adult drivers start wearing seatbelts, their behaviour changes in a manner that overtakes and overwhelms even this greater protection.
In that case, we are agreeing on almost everything, except on how to set a good example; head gear is not a good enough criteria!0 -
Since Piston summed up the thread I thought I'd have a closer look. I haven't rigourously verified this so I may have miscounted. In a lot of cases I had to use some judgement on what someone really meant in relation to my criteria so this is open to debate.
Obviously whether helmets improve safety is not a democratic process, if 99/100 people think you'll be fine eating those expired eggs that doesn't mean you won't get food poisoning.
As of now 71 individuals have posted in this thread.
27 say they always wear helmets
4 say they never do
6 say they sometimes do
34 didn't say (a couple of these are apparently non-cyclists)
Only 1 person seems to think helmets should be compulsory
1 person thinks maybe they should be
24 say they shouldn't (13 of these always wear helmets themselves)
45 people didn't explicitly say
Of the 'didn't says' some clearly thought it should be socially unacceptable to go helmetless but legal compulsion is what most people think of when this comes up.
12 people backed up their argument with anecdotes. Some more effectively than others in my opinion. The majority of anecdotes were given to back up a pro-helmet position.
6 people backed up their argument by referencing statistics or studies. Some of which were rubbished as being junk science. There were studies showing benefits and negatives for helmet wearing.0 -
galwaycyclist wrote: »Uh no I believe you are wrong there. I believe that the more existing cyclists who set a good example by cycling without helmets then the more non-cyclists might be tempted to take it up. At the moment the idea that you have to wear unusual and unattractive clothing is a barrier to cycling participation. Particularly among key sectors such as women and teenage girls.
This comment appears to have exercised a few people's minds with allegations of absurdity and trying to guilt people out. While it may upset some people it is not an absurd position but is logically consistent with some published findings on what influences the safety of cycling and cyclists. The question is where does the balance of advantage lie for both our individual safety and our collective safety as a group of road users?
Is it possible for helmet promotion to make cycling more dangerous? Actually I believe the answer is yes and I am not alone.
Fear of Cycling - Helmet Promotion Campaigns
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-03-helmet-promotion.htmlEfficacy at the aggregate level. Do helmet promotion campaigns make cycling more or less safe, overall? There is evidence that cycling levels decline when helmets are promoted and collapse when they become compulsory (Liggett et al 2004, 12). Australia, the first country to make cycle helmets compulsory, witnessed a post-compulsion fall in levels of cycling of between 15 and 40 per cent (Adams 1995, 146). According to ‘the Mole’ (2004, 5), in Melbourne 'compulsion reduced the number of child cyclists by 42% and adults by 29%'. Because cycling tends to be safest where there are many cyclists (Jacobsen 2003), and most dangerous in places with few cyclists, and because helmet promotion campaigns reduce the overall numbers of cyclists, helmet promotion increases the risk of cycling. The relationship between increased cycling and increased safety appears to be confirmed by the experiences of the Netherlands and Denmark, which have high levels of cycling, very low rates of helmet wearing, and low rates of death and serious injury among cyclists;
The essence of the argument is this. One of the factors that appears to reduce the risks of cycling is the number of cyclists. This is based on observations of injury rates in various situations. Without getting into a blow by blow explanation, the theory is that the more cyclists there are, the more aware motorists become, and that they tend to adjust their behaviour to take account of the likely presence of cyclists. It is not a hard and fast rule and there may be a threshold effect which means there may need to be a "critical mass" of cyclists for the effect to kick in.
That helmets are not a natural clothing choice for many people is self-evident. Why else would some countries feel they had to use laws to force people to wear helmets? That helmets and helmet hair are seen as a discouragement by many potential cyclists is established. Most people do not want to look foolish or unusual and it is hard to think of anything more unusual as a piece of daily attire than a cycle helmet. Why else are they almost never worn except when cycling?
Those who promote the idea that helmets are a necessary accessory for cycling are discouraging potential cyclists from taking it up. Discouraging cycling participation suppresses the number of cyclists thereby creating a more risky road environment for those of us who continue to cycle.
If you wish counteract this and make cycling safer, then it is entirely logical to promote cycling by providing role models for people who wish to cycle without helmets. Therefore it is necessary to find champions who are prepared to stand up to helmet propaganda and face it down. I believe that every time a politician or prominent media person is seen cycling in their ordinary clothes they should be offered support and congratulations for doing their bit to make cycling safer and more accessible for all of us. If that upsets some people then so be it.
PS: The safety in numbers argument arguably also works against cycle campaigners like me who highlight various aspects of traffic danger and problematic road designs etc. It also arguably works against those who insist that we have to have cycling specific infrastructure a la Amsterdam before more people can cycle - this argument itself puts people off just getting back on their bikes. The challenge for the cycle campaigning community is to pitch our arguments so that individual cyclists are well informed and empowered to deal with the situations they find without being put off completely.0 -
You are determined to portray me as the polar opposite of your views despite what I've written,
No, I'm not.
Mainly I have questioned some of your points / posts / attacks / name calling.
Your other points you've made are great, but I'm not questioning your more reasoned points. You're defending your points which I have not questioned!even attributing posts written by others to me to fuel your apparent indignation.
A small bit at the end of a post which I've since corrected in another post.In your seemingly blind desire to find a villain here that you can rail against you are trying to reduce the thread to some kind of tit for tat nonsense.
You think I have such a blind desire, but you go around posting that my debating style Is like having "large hammer" and I "view everything as a nail."
You're going around accusing just one side of the argument of "peer pressure" and "dictating".
You claim others on the thread want to see you "adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home."It's petty I know but I can't help
It seems a lot of your posts include petty points -- but you don't like when those are highlighted.dave_o_brien wrote: »How can I show you where they have refused to say something?.
You could ask a question?
Also, I'm sure I said helmets may be useful for risk takers / those engaging in risker behavior and those with a lack of balance etc.- They have a network of seggregated cycling facilities. We have poorly designed facilities and generally taking the road is safest.
So build seggregated cycling facilities?
People will still fall off their bikes on their bike paths -- it's has been claimed on theses boards more than a few times that crashes where helmets are useful include low-speed crashes with no other bike, car or person involved.chakattack wrote: »[*]They have a flat country (lower speeds). We have varied terrain. Highish speeds are still perfectly possible by everyday utility cyclists in Ireland (Patrick Street, Cork..Christchurch, Dublin).
They have loads of ramps -- often long ones -- at bridges and tunnels over / under railways, roads, canals and rivers.
They -- like us -- can pick up speed or use their breaks.
The Danish offer an example with a bit more hills, low helmet use (even if not as low as the Dutch), and low deaths and injuries.chakattack wrote: »[*]They have a strong cycling culture and driver behaviour to match.
One study (by Ian Walker) has shown that wearing a helmet can negatively affect driver behavior.
Lots of studies show that more cyclists on the streets positively effects a driver behavior
Meanwhile helmet use is low in the strongest cycling cultures and there's no helmet dominated city coming even close to the Dutch in cycling numbers --- and it's far more than just safety at stake.chakattack wrote: »[*]They ride old, heavy utility bikes. We ride 1000 euro racers/hybrids bought on the bike to work scheme.
I've read that cycling as a sport is also popular over there and you'll find way more utility and old slow bangers of bikes on the streets of Dublin and Galway than you'll find racers.
BTW The only estimate for the scheme that I've seen puts the average spend at €750.chakattack wrote: »Back to Keep her lit's excellent observation..in his 29 years of commuting would he have fared better (or at least not worse) had he followed your "advice" to not wear a helmet? He hit his helmeted head 4 times and suffered no facial or head injury.
I again don't recall giving him the advice not to wear a helmet... Can you point out where I did so?0 -
monument wrote:Mainly I have questioned some of your points / posts / attacks / name calling.
No you haven't. You have questioned some points which you claim I have made, I haven't. And what attacks? What name calling? You want me to answer your questions, ask rational ones, I can't help you with the others.0 -
galwaycyclist wrote: »This comment appears to have exercised a few people's minds with allegations of absurdity and trying to guilt people out. While it may upset some people it is not an absurd position but is logically consistent with some published findings on what influences the safety of cycling and cyclists.
My issue with your earlier statement is that you took a position which I find reasonable (i.e. "we don't all need helmets to cycle safely") but tagged on a moral argument with your reference to "set a good example by cycling without helmets". In my view morality has no useful place in an individual's reasoning of whether to wear a helmet or not. They should make that decision based entirely on a reasoned balancing of the available information (both for and against) on helmets. Morality clouds the issue and from both sides of the argument e.g. "if I don't wear a helmet my family will worry that I'm exposed to some danger or other, and I'm setting a bad example for my kids", "if I do wear a helmet my family will worry that I'm trying to protect myself from real dangers, and I'm setting a bad example for my kids". There are already strong arguments in favour of not wearing a helmet, throwing morality into the mix distracts from those at best and causes offence at worst.galwaycyclist wrote:If you wish counteract this and make cycling safer, then it is entirely logical to promote cycling by providing role models for people who wish to cycle without helmets. Therefore it is necessary to find champions who are prepared to stand up to helmet propaganda and face it down.
There are many ways to tackle helmet propaganda. One approach that I rarely see explored/debated is to challenge the basis of the very safety standards that helmets have to conform to. Question the safety tests themselves, for example. Are they useful? Do they bear any relation whatsoever to real world scenarios? Why do the standards, and perhaps the tests, differ across the world? Are helmets ever even independently tested to see if they actually conform to the standard they claim to meet ("Which" did this a while back, I believe, and from what little I know of the results they should have made those with a strongly pro helmet view sit up and take notice at the very least)?
A lot of the existing studies and opinion pieces which challenge the effectiveness of helmets seem to lead to heated debate over their veracity, there is possibly (or not) more scientifically damning evidence against helmets available through challenging their very design and testing methods. At the very least an investigation on this side might help educate people as to the limitations of the protection that a helmet really affords, which in itself would be very useful in my view.0 -
Advertisement
-
No you haven't. You have questioned some points which you claim I have made, I haven't. And what attacks? What name calling? You want me to answer your questions, ask rational ones, I can't help you with the others.
So you have not likened my debating style as like having "large hammer" and said that I "view everything as a nail"?
You're not going around accusing just one side of the argument of "peer pressure" and "dictating"?
And you're not claiming others on the thread want to see you "adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home"?
Grand sure then.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFbNkssW1Uw
Advertisement