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

MajesticDonkey

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody think wearing helmets is a bad idea.

Well OK then. I cannot understand how people think helmets will not help (even slightly) in the case of an accident. I agree that there should be better standards and more research, but saying helmets are useless in the majority of cases simply because of lack of scientific conclusions is madness IMO.

Chips Lovell

We've never been here before...

MajesticDonkey

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

We've never been here before...

Well I'm hardly going to spend hours reading through every post and every link to any bit of research done in this thread

But yes, I can guess this has probably been discussed over and over again, so I'll leave it here.

Mucco

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody think wearing helmets is a bad idea.

On a personal level, I'm ambivalent about helmets.
On a societal level, I can see the argument that helmets, along with high vis, promote the idea that cycling is dangerous and special safety equipment is required. Therefore, the fact that many people wear helmets may put other people off cycling leading to a reduction in the 'safety in numbers' concept.

This is just a theory with little evidence to back it up though.

Lumen

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Well OK then. I cannot understand how people think helmets will not help (even slightly) in the case of an accident.

Nobody thinks helmets will not even slightly help in the case of an accident.

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody thinks helmets will not even slightly help in the case of an accident.

Except me.

Lumen

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Except me.

Hold the line!

doozerie

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

...which would be a fairly reasonable conclusion in my opinion. I'm sorry, I just cannot for a second understand people who think wearing helmets is a bad idea.

Thereby completing the circle of this entire thread...

doozerie

My daughter and I were listening to RTE Junior, RTE's online radio station for kids, at the weekend. We like it and I imagine it's popular and has a sizeable audience. They played a song whose words were something along the lines of "wear a helmet because you don't want your head squashed, your brain is in there". It even had a line about "if you don't wear a helmet you are a fool". And all to the accompaniment of a jaunty tune. The indoctrination begins earlier than I thought.

It was a generic sounding song sung by someone with a generic accent (but with that slightly condescending tone that some songs aimed at kids seem so fond of), incidentally, my guess is that it wasn't something that was produced by RTE themselves. Thankfully I don't think my daughter picked up on it, particularly the suggestion that she is a fool for those times she has used her tricycle or balance bike without a helmet, but "thanks" for trying to instil fear and self-criticism there RTE...

Capt'n Midnight

Three cases

compulsory helmets laws - all the research so far indicates that it reduces the numbers of people cycling and so has negative health benefits , cycling without a helmet is better for your health than not cycling at all.

higher risk cyclists - at this stage almost all racers and off road cyclists wear helmets , if there is a significant risk of falling off the bike offroad or having a crash with other cyclists. This is the very stuff cycle helmets are designed for.

So really the only debate is about casual cyclists - seriously how often do people fall off their bikes ?
How many cyclists suffer head injuries that aren't as a result of collisions with motorists ?

Beasty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many cyclists suffer head injuries that aren't as a result of collisions with motorists ?

I did, on my commute on a flat hard shoulder, albeit I was doing 40kph which is unlikely to be typical of the "casual cyclist" and I agree this is very much the exception rather than the rule

RayCun

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So really the only debate is about casual cyclists - seriously how often do people fall off their bikes ?
How many cyclists suffer head injuries that aren't as a result of collisions with motorists ?

'Collisions with motorists' aren't necessarily head-on, car-to-head collisions. It includes bikes getting side-swiped, hitting the side of a turning car, getting doored etc which can lead to a head impact at well under 40kph.

pelevin

Should all people entering the sea to swim be forced to wear life-jackets? I would imagine swimming, if it were possible to be perfectly consistent stat-wise, would be shown to be much more dangerous than cycling. So should protective 'clothing' be compulsory? Argument could very easily go, "I can't believe anyone would willingly endanger their own/their child's life by sending them into the water unprotected." A very scary stat regarding number of drownings could then be produced, and so on.
If completely implemented triumphant results would certainly be produced with far less drownings, but admittedly far less swimming also.

CramCycle

Andrew Montague was on the right hook discussing compulsory helmets. Good speaker but it was horrible to hear NTs science guy disregard evidence as rubbish when he didn't agree.

It was like listening to a highlight reel of this thread.

monument

CramCycle wrote: »

Andrew Montague was on the right hook discussing compulsory helmets. Good speaker but it was horrible to hear NTs science guy disregard evidence as rubbish when he didn't agree.

It was like listening to a highlight reel of this thread.

Googled the named, I think that was their sports guy?

Hope Diarmaid Ferriter (standing in for Hook) does not take the same approach to history!

MajesticDonkey

Sir Bradley Wiggins: Cycle helmets should be compulsory, and iPods banned while riding bike

http://road.cc/content/news/90737-wiggins-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory-and-ipods-banned-while-riding-bike

pelevin

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Sir Bradley Wiggins: Cycle helmets should be compulsory, and iPods banned while riding bike

http://road.cc/content/news/90737-wiggins-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory-and-ipods-banned-while-riding-bike

Without reading the link, I do agree on the ipod thing. Insane to have hearing impaired while cycling.

AstraMonti

Sir Bradley should be keeping his brilliant ideas to himself.

tomasrojo

I came across this before, when Bradley Wiggins made an impromptu statement on compulsion. Fascinating to find it in the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html

(Nothing new to this thread in it though, I think.)

Has anyone ever heard Headway make any statement about head injury in the news sections of the media that isn't about bicycle helmets? I know they do plenty of other work, but this topic seems to complete dominate their media profile. You'd think that the huge number of inebriates acquiring head injuries every year might be more pressing for them.

Dermot Illogical

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Sir Bradley Wiggins: Cycle helmets should be compulsory, and iPods banned while riding bike

http://road.cc/content/news/90737-wiggins-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory-and-ipods-banned-while-riding-bike

His response to a cyclist being killed after a collision with a bus...

Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.

The man's a genius.

magicbastarder

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

at this stage almost all racers and off road cyclists wear helmets , if there is a significant risk of falling off the bike offroad or having a crash with other cyclists. This is the very stuff cycle helmets are designed for.

actually, given the fact that road races would probably be much more organised than 'casual' cycling in terms of recording crashes and injuries for organisational/insurance/what have you purposes, would they have better records of the severity of injuries pre and post compulsory helmets?

Beasty

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, given the fact that road races would probably be much more organised than 'casual' cycling in terms of recording crashes and injuries for organisational/insurance/what have you purposes, would they have better records of the severity of injuries pre and post compulsory helmets?

I very much doubt there would be any stats maintained - certainly not in Ireland. At an amateur level there are other factors in play, such as more medics in attendance at races (which may mean more recording of actual injuries, but also prompt and professional treatment which may reduce the overall impact of injury), in general larger fields (which could make races that bit faster and injuries potentially worse/more frequent particularly with a higher proportion of "novice" racers taking part) etc. In addition although not always compulsory helmets were often worn in the past, but may have been manufactured to a lesser standard. I suspect there are simply too many variables to draw any meaningful conclusions

Beasty

AstraMonti wrote: »

Sir Bradley should be keeping his brilliant ideas to himself.

TBH this is often the approach of many in the "pro-choice" camp (and to be clear I am personally against compulsion) - he's as entitled to express a view on these matters as anyone else.

enas

Beasty wrote: »

TBH this is often the approach of many in the "pro-choice" camp (and to be clear I am personally against compulsion) - he's as entitled to express a view on these matters as anyone else.

He's certainly entitled to his pro-compulsion views. But I certainly share AstraMonti's anger that his uses a tragic event to promote those views (that doesn't apply to his latest statement as reported by the article).

AstraMonti

Beasty wrote: »

TBH this is often the approach of many in the "pro-choice" camp (and to be clear I am personally against compulsion) - he's as entitled to express a view on these matters as anyone else.

It's not the same, he is a public figure. He is not an expert in safety and he has to weigh his words much more than me and you.

Beasty

AstraMonti wrote: »

It's not the same, he is a public figure. He is not an expert in safety and he has to weigh his words much more than me and you.

You really think the legislators will pay attention simply because it's Sir Brad? They will however take account of the real "experts" should any legislative proposals be forthcoming

Dermot Illogical

Beasty wrote: »

You really think the legislators will pay attention simply because it's Sir Brad? They will however take account of the real "experts" should any legislative proposals be forthcoming

They're more likely to take into account public sentiment, as that's where the votes are. Wiggins is in a position to influence that sentiment.

Beasty

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

They're more likely to take into account public sentiment, as that's where the votes are. Wiggins is in a position to influence that sentiment.

If public sentiment was driving this they would have become compulsory some time ago. Indeed I suspect it's relatively recently that a lot of work has been done to show compulsion actually discourages cycling. Then there's Boris' bikes - another success (as of course is the Dublin bike scheme) which would be destroyed if they made helmets compulsory

... do you seriously think votes would swing on something like this?

monument

Sadly, I think one of the worst possible affects of the new helmet news in the UK is that it may prove to be a distraction to the wider debate on cycling.

It's fairly comon that helmets are a distraction, but MPs are soon to debate the recommendations of the all-party report on cycling and a vote for it is key to getting cycling as transport better funded and provisions like cycling training at school across the UK.

check_six

His response to a cyclist being killed after a collision with a bus...

Quote:
Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.

The man's a genius.

My kneejerk reaction to Wiggo's kneejerk reaction is that he is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The inverse of his statement is 'you cannot get killed if you have a helmet on'. Laughable really.

Helmet compulsion is a very bad idea. Wiggins should encourage people to check their brakes, bring some lights, and be aware of dangerous situations you can get into, but no he justs spouts gobbeldygook that puts fear in cyclists and gives justification for everyone else to harass them.