Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

CramCycle

1750W wrote: »

I wonder how the no helmet advocates feel about wether children playing on bikes should wear helmets for their own safety or is the risk to a child of injury not worth the effort of insisting in a child wear a helmet?

I am going to give my child the choice, I have one who has a helmet(17yo), she doesn't wear it on the rare occasion she cycles. The only time it is worn, much like myself, are in situations where her Grandmother might see her, which as it turns out, are so rare it never comes up.

For my next child, if it decides to ride a bike, there will be a helmet there, if he/she wants to wear it, it will be their choice, I won't influence them either way.

His/her mother will insist on it but if I seem them out without one, I won't be dobbing them in.

chakattack

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In situations where the main danger is motorists, a helmet almost certainly increases the risk of collision.

Come on now..are you for real??? ALMOST CERTAINLY :pac::pac::pac:

This is a perfect example of my problem with the promotion of sketchy scientific studies by some of the more hardcore anti-helmet people.

Unproven (and dangerous in my opinion - but that's for debate :cool:) concepts creep into public knowledge until it is taken as fact by some.

Look back at the start of this thread, most people on both sides agree that the work of Ian Walker points to a few very specific results and is far from proof of anything.

chakattack

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IF cyclists had to wear motorbike helmets which are designed to take impacts at vehicular speed then yes I'd believe that they would offer significant protection in a collision with a vehicle. But they are only designed for falling from a bike at ~20Km.

Again I'm going to use "anecdotal evidence", Mr 1750W smacked his head riding his bike on irish roads only last week while sprinting at over 50 kph. I'm sure he thinks the protection his helmet served was "significant"

@1750W Hope you're ok dude.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

His/her mother will insist on it

This. Mother's will beats ideology and/or scientific research as sure as scissors beats paper. Some fights aren't worth taking discussions are best avoided.

smacl

chakattack wrote: »

Again I'm going to use "anecdotal evidence", Mr 1750W smacked his head riding his bike on irish roads only last week while sprinting at over 50 kph. I'm sure he thinks the protection his helmet served was "significant"

@1750W Hope you're ok dude.

I think rather than disregarding the anecdotal evidence given, it could be worth collating it into a dataset. There's a significant population of cyclists on this site, so maybe putting a questionnaire together covering how many hours cycled per year, how many years cycling, how many accidents in total, %of cycling in groups, &of cycling in urban areas, how many with knock to the head where helmet was of benefit, how many where helmet was detrimental or of no benefit, etc...

There's many variables that need to be considered, and I also have reservations about the level of confirmation bias in play in the anti-helmet lobby. My feeling is that the findings of some studies are being too broadly / inappropriately applied to groups dissimilar from their original population. Gathering up some stats of boardsies experiences would at least give us some idea as to whether helmets were of benefit to individual boardsies, based on their cycling activities.

Whether I should wear a helmet cycling up to Marlay with my daughter seems like an altogether different question as to whether I should wear one on a 200k sportive.

Capt'n Midnight

chakattack wrote: »

Again I'm going to use "anecdotal evidence", Mr 1750W smacked his head riding his bike on irish roads only last week while sprinting at over 50 kph. I'm sure he thinks the protection his helmet served was "significant"

I'll quote myself.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In situations where a cyclist can be expect to fall, like racing or off road, then helmets are already worn.

In situations where the main danger is motorists, a helmet almost certainly increases the risk of collision.

You are ignoring that both cyclists and motorists take more risks when they have safety devices.

chakattack wrote: »

Come on now..are you for real??? ALMOST CERTAINLY :pac::pac::pac:
...
Look back at the start of this thread, most people on both sides agree that the work of Ian Walker points to a few very specific results and is far from proof of anything.

Helmets, especially those that don't offer significant protection at speed, aren't a panacea. Driver education in the sense that drivers consciously give room to cyclists would be a much better option.

We still live in a world where motorists will overtake cyclists in an unsafe manner. ie. there is just about enough room for them to nip back in to avoid the oncoming car , but that's putting the cyclist in danger because if there isn't enough room than it's very likely that the overtaking motorist will instinctively avoid the head on collision by veering into the cyclist.

Does anyone have any stats on the speeds at which bicycle - motorist collisions happen at ?

helimachoptor

Forgot my helmet this morning, 2nd time in 2 years... felt very exposed :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

helimachoptor wrote: »

Forgot my helmet this morning, 2nd time in 2 years... felt very exposed :eek:

Did you behave differently ?
Did you take less risks ?

helimachoptor

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Did you behave differently ?
Did you take less risks ?

Yes, slower and much more mindful of my movements and hazards (not that i'm not like that generally) but i felt a very heightened sense of "s**t my head could crack open like an egg and people could feast on the goo inside"

enas

helimachoptor wrote: »

Yes, slower and much more mindful of my movements and hazards (not that i'm not like that generally) but i felt a very heightened sense of "s**t my head could crack open like an egg and people could feast on the goo inside"

I understand that feeling, I also get it when I cycle to work without my helmet (which is very rare). But I think that's just what we call habit. Honestly, on the very rare occasions I cycle without my backpack, I'm having the exact same feeling. I feel something is different, I find it's very weird and that I must be doing something very dangerous. And that's without being biased by a belief (because this is what it is) that wearing a backpack offers any protection (and incidentally, I don't believe that my helmet offers any protection either). I'm honestly serious. I also get the same feeling when I start cycling without gloves after winter, for the first few days (a week or so).

I think they're all the same phenomenon, you get used to wearing the equipment (the helmet, the backpack, the gloves), possibly it's, at least partly, a physical thing (you get used to the contact on your body) so when you remove then, you initially feel naked and exposed.

Incidentally, none of that applies when I cycle with my family, where I never wear a helmet (and neither do any of my kids, I would find it just ridiculous -- I only talk for me, I'm not judging anyone else). I think I just conditioned myself to helmet wearing feeling right for some type of cycling and not for others.

Alek

It happens to me even when I forget my gloves - I feel more exposed... so I am more careful :-)

Maybe its good habit to carry a few irrelevant items, like trouser clip on the left leg or a broken rear light, and purposedly leave one of them at home every time you go for a spin?

Cyclepath

helimachoptor wrote: »

Forgot my helmet this morning, 2nd time in 2 years... felt very exposed :eek:

I did the same last week - same feeling. And despite the fact that I was hyper-alert I was still very much aware that any previous accident I have had was due to some other asshole doing something stupid.

My own logic for wearing a helmet is quite simple. Despite the fact that my evidence is anecdotal, I know for sure that my helmet has saved me several trips to A&E. I've landed on my head, or head-butted several hard objects over the years and have never had so much as a scrape. In fact, my only head injury has been due to falling over walking home from the pub.

I also think it'd be difficult to find anyone who would say, post-accident, "I wish I hadn't been wearing that bloody helmet..."

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see them made mandatory, but I do get tired hearing counter-intuitive and biased arguments that try to convince me that helmets are useless.

enas

Cyclepath wrote: »

I also think it'd be difficult to find anyone who would say, post-accident, "I wish I hadn't been wearing that bloody helmet..."

I think we did have some of those in this thread (obviously too lazy to find them).

Diarmuid

Cyclepath wrote: »

In fact, my only head injury has been due to falling over walking home from the pub..

I presume you learned your lesson and always wear a helmet to the pub now?

Boogietime

I don't really understand the topic discussed here.

Are we really talking about the difference between wearing an exoskeleton that would protect a vital organ from utter damage/spill on the asphalt versus not wearing it?

I have never seen a bigger undertake of piss, if this is a joke
If it's not a joke and some are taking this seriously, here's the binding conclusion:

If you have enough noggin', you'll know best what to put on it!

smacl

enas wrote: »

I think we did have some of those in this thread (obviously too lazy to find them).

Cramcycle was certainly one, though they're definitely in a small minority compared the helmet saved my life posts. Like any anecdotal information, all it suggests is that more in-depth study is required. In the absence of such a study, and given I've no objection to wearing a helmet, I'll continue to wear one.

CramCycle

alkos wrote: »

It happens to me even when I forget my gloves - I feel more exposed... so I am more careful :-)

Far more important from my own experiences, road rash hurts.

Cyclepath wrote: »

I also think it'd be difficult to find anyone who would say, post-accident, "I wish I hadn't been wearing that bloody helmet..."

I have one, I know have chronic neck pain due to the helmet getting caught on a cross bar in a car as I went through the rear windscreen after getting hit by another car. My solicitor tells me that the helmet was a good thing as it paints a picture of somone who takes safety seriously (and therefore was more likely to be cycling safely). Personally, the neck pain, cracking, and pain killers I will most likely have for the rest of my life was not worth the miniscule payout I was given. I would pay the driver if she could make this go away. I wish I had not being wearing a helmet that day. My arms and body reacted in time but the helmet caught my skull and whipped me back. I would have went straight through if I hadn't being wearing it IMO, cut to shreds but at least they would heal.

But this is a story, just like the pro helmet ones above, those in accidents with helmets who claim they saved them may have reacted differently without a helmet eg got their arms up around their neck/head to protect it, the reduced weight may have made it easier for their neck to carry their head safely in the sudden deceleration or they may not have those reactions anyway and the helmet did save them from a horrific injury. I don't know, I wasn't there, the person involved only has their, relevant but limited view on all the circumstances. Same as mine, I don't know what would have been different if I did not have a helmet on, I think I do, I tell people I do but the truth is (and don't tell anyone), I don't know, the same way people with cracked helmets presume the accident would have been identical without a helmet.

If you want to wear a helmet, wear one, if you don't, don't. Those on the thread calling out or mocking those who don't are insulting in my opinion, the facts from what seems to be various sources are inconclusive at best, and make solid arguments for both sides of the debate depending what way you look at.

I am anti helmet laws, not anti helmet, there is a huge difference. One is a viewpoint that is arrived at after viewing the apparent* damage it had on cycling numbers in other countries with statistically insignificant** changes to head injuries, the other is just being an asshat.

*I say apparent, it seems obvious to me but there could have been a number of factors left unreported that influenced numbers, like alot of scientific studies, it shows what it wants if you look at the data the right way.
** Don't have the study to hand, think it was Canada but again, I remember finding many flaws with their extrapolation of stats from the data. If memory serves, % wise head injuries went up but number of head injuries went down overall.

Doctor Bob

Boogietime wrote: »

Are we really talking about the difference between wearing an exoskeleton that would protect a vital organ from utter damage/spill on the asphalt versus not wearing it?

You can choose whether or not you wear your skull? Fascinating!

Lumen

Boogietime wrote: »

I don't really understand the topic discussed here.

Are we really talking about the difference between wearing an exoskeleton that would protect a vital organ from utter damage/spill on the asphalt versus not wearing it?

I have never seen a bigger undertake of piss, if this is a joke
If it's not a joke and some are taking this seriously, here's the binding conclusion:

If you have enough noggin', you'll know best what to put on it!

Admit it, you haven't read the whole thread, have you?

Boogietime

Doctor Bob wrote: »

You can choose whether or not you wear your skull? Fascinating!

It's all fun and games until someone doesn't know what a word means and tries to be ironic about it.

If the brain is inside your skull (I really hope that's your situation), it doesn't make the skull an exoskeleton. Here's more for ya, on a website that just launched:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeleton

Lumen

@Boogietime, I'll save you some time by summarising the no-compulsory-helmets-please position....

If you ride your bike safely, the risk of sustaining a head injury is lower than many other activities for which people don't wear helmets.

Therefore, it makes sense to wear a helmet:

(a) when you haven't mastered the skill of safe cycling, or
(b) when you know how to cycle safely but can't, e.g. road racing, or
(c) when you know how to cycle safely but can't be bothered, e.g. drafting buses, checking out floatily-dressed tottie, or
(d) almost all the time, on the bike, in the car, up ladders, in the shower, when drunk, etc.

I subscribe to cases (b) and (c), but whatever you're having yourself.

Capt'n Midnight

CramCycle wrote: »

I am anti helmet laws, not anti helmet, there is a huge difference.

+1

I'm anti "cycling helmets give realistic protection when in collision with a vehicle"

I'm anti "if the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet then the motorist isn't as responsible for damages"

I'm anti "forcing cyclists to wear unproven safety devices, instead of modifying driver behaviour"


In health and safety the golden rule is to remove the risk, and only if that's not possible should PPE be considered.



If I feel I have to wear a helmet because there is a significant risk of being hit by a motorist then why would I bother getting on a bike anyway ?

Boogietime

Lumen wrote: »

@Boogietime, I'll save you some time by summarising the no-compulsory-helmets-please position....

If you ride your bike safely, the risk of sustaining a head injury is lower than many other activities for which people don't wear helmets.

Therefore, it makes sense to wear a helmet:

(a) when you haven't mastered the skill of safe cycling, or
(b) when you know how to cycle safely but can't, e.g. road racing, or
(c) when you know how to cycle safely but can't be bothered, e.g. drafting buses, checking out floatily-dressed tottie, or
(d) almost all the time, on the bike, in the car, up ladders, in the shower, when drunk, etc.

I subscribe to cases (b) and (c), but whatever you're having yourself.

Good point you make there, but the helmet's intrinsic value is not really that it protects you from what you are doing. Even if you're cycling safe and Paddy ol'drunkhead is driving down the road in his 4x4 and sends you to the ground, head first, you would probably be happy that you considered the helmet.

Just saying, the factors you need to take in consideration are not only your own. That's why race drivers are still obligated to wear a seatbelt.


Because they're not the only ones on the road.


That's the only explanation I agree on taking, can't really be bothered to extend subject if the above statement is not clear enough for some.

Happy cycling!

Lumen

Boogietime wrote: »

Good point you make there, but the helmet's intrinsic value is not really that it protects you from what you are doing. Even if you're cycling safe and Paddy ol'drunkhead is driving down the road in his 4x4 and sends you to the ground, head first, you would probably be happy that you considered the helmet.

Just saying, the factors you need to take in consideration are not only your own.

Right. You're essentially making the case that:

"With the best will in the world, it is not possible to cycle in such a way as to avoid accidents when cycling."

You're entitled to that view, although it is not borne out by either statistics or real word experience of a lot of people.

And they you go and ruin it by stating..

Boogietime wrote: »

That's why race drivers are still obligated to wear a seatbelt.

Because they're not the only ones on the road.

..which is ridiculous, because motorsport is nothing like riding a bicycle, and then to cap it off...

Boogietime wrote: »

That's the only explanation I agree on taking, can't really be bothered to extend subject if the above statement is not clear enough for some.

...which is the rhetorical equivalent of taking the ball and sulking off home to mammy.

CramCycle

Boogietime wrote: »

Because they're not the only ones on the road.

That's the only explanation I agree on taking, can't really be bothered to extend subject if the above statement is not clear enough for some.

Do you wear a helmet in any of the other activities mentioned? Your posts imply not wearing a helmet is idiotic while cycling but time and time again, other activities are shown to be statistically more dangerous and so I wonder do you wear a helmet when walking in public, having a drink, when you are under the weather and throwing up in a toilet (kills 8 people a year in America (2007, if memory serves correctly)), when playing contact sports etc.

Boogietime

Lumen wrote: »

..which is ridiculous, because motorsport is nothing like riding a bicycle, and then to cap it off...

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear:

Even though race drivers are incredibly skilled on/off the road, they still need, by law, to wear a seatbelt when driving a normal car on normal roads. It's not for their safety.

Runnin to your mommy doesn't sound like a valid option really, though I bet she'd facepalm too when she saw that when you can't understand a statement you reply with irony. Ouchy ouch

TinyExplosions

Boogietime wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear:

Even though race drivers are incredibly skilled on/off the road, they still need, by law, to wear a seatbelt when driving a normal car on normal roads. It's not for their safety.

Runnin to your mommy doesn't sound like a valid option really, though I bet she'd facepalm too when she saw that when you can't understand a statement you reply with irony. Ouchy ouch

But currently, wearing a seatbelt is the law, wearing a helmet isn't, so your argument doesn't stack up in the slightest.

Boogietime

CramCycle wrote: »

Do you wear a helmet in any of the other activities mentioned? Your posts imply not wearing a helmet is idiotic while cycling but time and time again, other activities are shown to be statistically more dangerous and so I wonder do you wear a helmet when walking in public, having a drink, when you are under the weather and throwing up in a toilet (kills 8 people a year in America (2007, if memory serves correctly)), when playing contact sports etc.

Cool, I'd be glad if you could provide statistics that show that walking in public leads to more head trauma than cycling on public roads.

Also, in my opinion, wearing a helmet when having a drink is like putting on a condom if you're passive.


Not to worry if you weren't taking the piss and you really meant what you said, I'll try to explain my opinion one last time a lil' bit clearer:
If your activity is prone to give you head trauma, you should wear a helmet.


Is that okay?

"
But currently, wearing a seatbelt is the law, wearing a helmet isn't, so your argument doesn't stack up in the slightest. "

My argument is not based upon the road regulations at the moment. The analogy with the race driver is merely there to underline the necessity of protecting yourself when others won't.

Dermot Illogical

Boogietime wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear:

Even though race drivers are incredibly skilled on/off the road, they still need, by law, to wear a seatbelt when driving a normal car on normal roads. It's not for their safety.

It is for their safety, and that of anyone else they may be catapulted into on impact.
Whereas wearing (or not) a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else but the cyclist. Not that you would think that from the amount of people who seem determined to interfere. I can only guess they possess the potent cocktail of pathetic skills with a dash of belief that those skills are as good as it gets, and as such are projecting their perception of risk onto others.
Wobble off the lot of you.

buffalo

Boogietime wrote: »

If your activity is prone to give you head trauma, you should wear a helmet.

Drinking helmets for everyone! \o/