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

Arcade_Tryer

doozerie wrote: »

Anyway, next time someone starts lecturing me on how I'm socially irresponsible by not wearing a helmet every single time I ride a bike.

Driving a car is more socially irresponsible than not wearing a helmet whilst cycling.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

I couldn't recall the actual number afterwards, it seemed so unrealistic at the time that I assumed it was simply wrong anyway and I didn't retain it.

Alcohol has killed members of my family and regrettably is on its way to killing my father as well. I always thought as a nation we had a "bit" of a drink problem, but not enough to get overly concerned about.

That was, until I stopped giving a sh1t about my Dads reputation, and just actually telling people what was happening. I was quite surprised to find that it was the exception rather than the rule to say it to someone who did not either have a close friend or close family member who was in the same boat or sadly, gone from us, directly as a result of booze. In all the stories I had heard, only one of them came close to an understandable one, the rest were simply people who had either done one of three things, gotten used to it because they were sociable, and by the time it was noticed, they were already an addict, two, trying to fill up the time, this seems to be more common in rural areas and among the elderly but it by no means those two groups alone and thirdly those who felt let down by lifes expectations and, maybe unknowingly, were trying to numb themselves. The last I seemed to notice in people who came back from abroad, with partners, and moved somewhere, where there social outlet was not as clear cut.

No point lying, probably borderline myself for years, it may have actually been my father that made me take a strong look at myself. I still drink but
alot less and to be honest, for the first time in years, not that pushed about it when I go out anymore. (had one earlier tonight, followed by a cup of tea and my other great weakness, Almond fingers)

The funny thing is doozerie, if you try and bring this up in a discussion like this, you will be accused of strawmanning or deflection, rather than the real point which is, considering the number of deaths and serious injuries, and as tragic as they are, the bare numbers indicate that there are far more sensible things we could target with less effort, for less money that even if they are not successful, will still save more lives than if helmets stopped all cyclists deaths.

Every law designed to promote healthier attitudes towards drinking is met with shock horror and indignation, replies range from, they are grown up enough to make their own mind up (you clearly don't understand addicts very well), to this is a tax on a, b, or c.

I can think of far more annoying laws that they couldn't come up with such BS. How about, per person, in a shop, a vendor can only sell the recommended daily amount x 2.

House or dinner parties, if you drink, you bring your own.

Christmas the next day, tough luck, live without out it for less than a day.

In a pub, well technically a barman shouldn't serve you if you are already inebriated so that is sorted.

Have alcoholism classed under the mental health act and allow people to be sectioned for it.

I say this all as someone who likes a beer, enjoys a glass of wine and on occasion has a whiskey. I also say this as someone who knows that if I hadn't met the right person, had kids and watch my own father throw his life away, then I would probably be in a worse place than him.

I and a few others I know could have posted that letter for letter CramCycle , if not for my kid and partner and my love of cycling I shudder to think of what might have been back when I was on slippery slops.

doozerie

@CramCycle, That's exactly it, we have it within our power as a society to address the very real and terrible problem of alcohol abuse. And there are many people and many organisations that work tirelessly at that, but broader society does its best to turn a blind eye to the very existence of the problem. Instead we (society) end up with a focus on such stupid distractions as whether cyclists are irresponsible members of society for not wearing helmets. It makes no sense to me at all, such energy would be far better spent trying to deal with one of the (many) very real problems/killers that we try hard to ignore every day.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm not trying to make light of alcoholism when I say that, for me the topic of alcoholism is not just a point of contrast against the helmet "debate". There are alcoholics in my family, largely unacknowledged as is so often the case, but thankfully no deaths as a direct consequence of alcoholism, that I am aware of anyway. My wife is less fortunate in that respect, she lost her brother aged 38, a terrible waste of a life full of potential.

So as regards the question of helmets, wear a helmet or don't wear a helmet that's entirely a personal choice in my view, and it's entirely appropriate as far as I am concerned that I am able to make a different choice to someone else. What is entirely inappropriate is for people to dress up their judgemental criticism of those that choose differently to them, as some kind of expression of concern about the welfare of those others.

Like many others, I've been subjected to the "it's for your own good" argument by people apparently concerned for my welfare when I don't wear a helmet. They don't ask whether my helmet is actually likely to make the slightest difference (Does the helmet itself meet the required minimal safety standards? Even the "lesser" standards that helmets in the EU have to meet? Is it already damaged and therefore compromised? When did I last replace it? Is it the right size for my head? Do I wear it correctly or do I leave the straps open, etc.? Do I wear it but just rattle through red lights and the like and basically throw myself entirely at the mercy of every other road user that I encounter? Do I really understand that all it offers it the possibility of some degree of protection in certain types of situations, that it does not actually possess magical properties of protection? etc. etc).

They also don't ask whether there are other issues in my life that make me not care in the slightest about my own personal safety in the first place. Overall, the sincerity of their concern for my welfare I'd rate at nil, perhaps less, the sincerity of their desire to simply "be right" I'd rate as extremely high.

droidus

Its the semiotics of it, the symbolism of apparent personal responsibility, a minor negation of the perceived irresponsibility and oddity of using a bicycle as a means of transport in the first place.

Whether or not it is effective or makes sense is irrelevant, its the shell game of endless empty signifiers which make up society that's important. In that sense it is magical.

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

Anyway, next time someone starts lecturing me on how I'm socially irresponsible by not wearing a helmet every single time I ride a bike, I may ask them whether they themselves are being socially irresponsible in their consumption of alcohol.

Also ask them if they were a helmet if binge drinking, which is over 3 pints. A&E is packed full of drunks who have suffered head injuries, I have never once heard of a journalist asking the coroner or doctor "do you think if he had been wearing a helmet while drinking it would have helped", which seems to be be a common enough question when a cyclist has an accident, and I expect most coroners/doctors would say yes, just like they do about cyclists. While the pandemic doctors might say no, as they are not thinking of this one off incidient.

Also my other usual response
"do you wear a helmet"
"no"
"you are mental, why not?"
"probably for very similar reasons why you do not wear a helmet while driving (or drinking), I am presuming you are mental and do not wear one while driving".

This puts the onus on them to come up with reasons they do not wear one in a similar "dangerous" activity. And every excuse they give you can usually be turned right back at them. I would also add that I would certainly wear one if doing mountainbiking, just like I would in a car if rally driving.

tomasrojo

The Galway Cycling campaign is concerned that the Minimum-Passing Distance Legislation might have some unrelated issues attached to it:

Overall the MPDL proposals are welcome. However, there is real cause for concern that there might be an attempt to attach the MPDL proposals to a push to criminalise normal walking and cycling by requiring unusual items of clothing such as polystyrene foam cycling helmets or so-called high-visibility clothing.

http://www.galwaycycling.org/cycling-campaign-releases-briefing-note-on-minimum-passing-distance-proposals/

There certainly are quite a few people involved in the MPDL discussions who have recently been vociferously pro-compulsion on one or both of these issues (AGS, Robert Troy, hauliers association).

I have to say, it did worry me that people favouring the MPDL were citing Australia as an example. From what I know of Australia, it's a terrible example with regard to cycling in general, though perhaps not on the MPDL issue itself.

Capt'n Midnight

tomasrojo wrote: »

There certainly are quite a few people involved in the MPDL discussions who have recently been vociferously pro-compulsion on one or both of these issues (AGS, Robert Troy, hauliers association).

It depends on what the goal is.

Is it to make cycling safer ?

Or is it to reduce the number of cyclists so there's less delays to traffic having to wait to overtake them safely ?

BTW if we move to self-driving cars wouldn't that remove a lot of the need for helmets ?

tomasrojo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It depends on what the goal is.

Is it to make cycling safer ?

Or is it to reduce the number of cyclists so there's less delays to traffic having to wait to overtake them safely ?

I can't really know what motivates any individual(*). I'm reasonably sure, based on precedent, that any successful push for compulsion would be a bad outcome for the numbers of people cycling, wouldn't do anything much for injury rates, and would probably lead to greater traffic delays, and more pressure on public transport.

(*)Except that it seems pretty likely that the hauliers' rep just want to change the subject from the MPDL, which they really don't like, to a strategy that puts the burden of responsibility onto somebody else.

Grassey

Do helmets provide protection where you "get knocked off"?

cython

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Bleeper bike , bicycle sharing has just launched in Sligo.
Seems a good idea.

Only issue at the moment is they don't supply cycling helmets, and I think it's always a good idea to wear helmets when cycling, you never know if you are going to fall off , or get knocked off. Its a case of bring your own .. or do without! As someone put it on twitter.

I can see in one way where they are coming from,how would they store them, distribute them , and would someone want to wear someone else's sweaty helmet, and then if they get a knock they should be replaced. But on the other hand if someone is out and just wants to conveniently hire the bike and not necessarily be carrying a helmet on them then they are going to be riding without a helmet.

I would wonder how they get by this insurance wise as well, hiring out bikes without protection (helmets)

As noted, if the bolded were a genuine concern how do all the other bike sharing schemes in the country and indeed abroad get by without insurance? If that argument held any merit, a shop selling a bike without a helmet would have a liability, but in reality wearing a cycling helmet is up to the individual. The only expectation on the scheme operator is that the bicycles are mechanically sound/not dangerously defective.

Andy From Sligo

Grassey wrote: »

Do helmets provide protection where you "get knocked off"?

to the brain/head it could ...

have seen some gruesome injuries before where people have come off their bikes - legal requirement or not, they <do> can protect your head

Andy From Sligo

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm not aware of any bike share scheme that supplies helmets - they're not a legal requirement, it's up to the cyclist.

that was going to be my next question but you have answered it .... so is there any country where its illegal to ride without a helmet?

rollingscone

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

that was going to be my next question but you have answered it .... so is there any country where its illegal to ride without a helmet?

Yes. It's the most effective way to reduce the number of cyclists as seen in Australia and parts of Canada.

Saw a guy on a Dublin Bike wearing a helmet and hivis vest nearly plow into a crowd of pedestrians this morning...it's almost as if exercising due care on the roads is more important than safety wear of dubious efficacy.

Weepsie

Mod: Discussion Moved from Sligo Bleeper Bike Thread.

Andy From Sligo

if you had your son/daughter on bicycle you would want to protect them by putting a cycling helmet on them so why when a lot of people as they get older and cycle think they are not as good idea to wear one?

Chips Lovell

If you don't think cycling is dangerous, why would you want your child to wear a helmet?

ED E

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

if you had your son/daughter on bicycle you would want to protect them by putting a cycling helmet on them so why when a lot of people as they get older and cycle think they are not as good idea to wear one?

Its rather obvious Andy.


Childrens skulls start with a hole in them which fills in at 18mo but overall their skeleton is still in a formational state.



Once you get over the 16-ish mark you're a good bit harder to damage.

magicbastarder

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

if you had your son/daughter on bicycle you would want to protect them by putting a cycling helmet on them so why when a lot of people as they get older and cycle think they are not as good idea to wear one?

<hoary old chestnut argument>is it a good idea to wear a helmet while undertaking any physical activity, and also driving; so why don't people wear a helmet while driving or playing football?</hoary old chestnut argument>

or; sure, wear a helmet if it makes you feel safer, but please do not make the mistake of assuming it protects you to the extent that the general public seems to think it does.

rubadub

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

if you had your son/daughter on bicycle you would want to protect them by putting a cycling helmet on them so why when a lot of people as they get older and cycle think they are not as good idea to wear one?

You are asking 1 question, when really I see 2 questions in there, and you have presumed that everybody would agree with the question "would you want your child to wear a helmet?".

My parents never made me wear a helmet as a child, they were available at the time. A child down the road was killed on a bike.

I remember when we suddenly had to wear hurley helmets in school, injuries went up, just as injuries went up when shin guards became popular.

Lads on my road would put on hurling helmets and do reckless stunts on bikes on ramps.

I do take note and belive in that study showing that cars give more room when overtaking people without helmets. After all, I continually hear people pronounce others mad/insane if they do not wear a helmet, I slow down on my bike if approaching people of diminished mental capacity, or being unpredictable be it kids, drunks, messing teenagers. Not wearing a helmet is apparently a convenient message that you are a wild reckless lunatic, so it makes sense that cars would give you a wide berth, god knows what crazy thing you will do next!

Macy0161

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

if you had your son/daughter on bicycle you would want to protect them by putting a cycling helmet on them so why when a lot of people as they get older and cycle think they are not as good idea to wear one?

I'm as ambivalent about my own children wearing helmets on the bikes as I am about adults to be honest. It's much more important that I see them out in the garden on their bikes, exercising, and much more benefit in a cost v benefit analysis.

CramCycle

I'd never ask my son or daughter to wear one, and neither regularly do. Unless my partner is around, in which case they do, as they know that they will be in trouble.

Helmet wearing was the point in my sons life where I taught him how to hide things from his parents, a skill that will undoubtedly come back to haunt me.

Andy From Sligo

ED E wrote: »

Its rather obvious Andy.


Childrens skulls start with a hole in them which fills in at 18mo but overall their skeleton is still in a formational state.



Once you get over the 16-ish mark you're a good bit harder to damage.

ah right - thanks - I obviously didnt look into it that deep!

Andy From Sligo

magicbastarder wrote: »

<hoary old chestnut argument>is it a good idea to wear a helmet while undertaking any physical activity, and also driving; so why don't people wear a helmet while driving or playing football?</hoary old chestnut argument>

or; sure, wear a helmet if it makes you feel safer, but please do not make the mistake of assuming it protects you to the extent that the general public seems to think it does.

what about 'experts' that think its safer to wear helmets and they save brain injuries ?

Andy From Sligo

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd never ask my son or daughter to wear one, and neither regularly do. Unless my partner is around, in which case they do, as they know that they will be in trouble.

Helmet wearing was the point in my sons life where I taught him how to hide things from his parents, a skill that will undoubtedly come back to haunt me.

yeah - talk about mixed messages..

Steoller

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

if you had your son/daughter on bicycle you would want to protect them by putting a cycling helmet on them so why when a lot of people as they get older and cycle think they are not as good idea to wear one?

It's not about being opposed to helmets, it's about being opposed to compulsory helmets. A helmet may give you better odds in an accident, but if making them compulsory increases the odds of having an accident in the first place then you lose the benefit.
I always go back to Denmark and the Netherlands. They are the benchmark for cycling, so if compulsory helmets where of benefit to the public good, to health and safety, aren't these the places where they would be of most use? And yet, cycling injuries are low in these places. Why? They don't exist on a magical plane where cycling is safer for some unknowable reason, they have to deal with the same traffic, population, and infrastructure problems we do. 
The only difference between there and here is that they have identified the barriers to safe cycling as an infrastructure problem and had the will to do something about it, whereas we are still hung up on personal responsibility, and have a government that can only see as far as the US and UK in terms of domestic policy.

rubadub

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

what about 'experts' that think its safer to wear helmets and they save brain injuries ?

I saw a very good point being made about this. Usually they go into a hospital see a guy with a head injury in bed or in the morgue, and bluntly ask the doctor "do you think this injury may have been prevented if the person was wearing a helmet". The doctor usually says yes, and they equate this with the doctor having recommended everybody wears helmets. The mortician or doctor is looking solely at this victim.

The media & reporters never ask the doctors in A&E if a helmet would have helped in the case of a drunk who has fallen over, people who got into a fight, people in car crashes. If they did then I expect they would also bluntly say yes.

Some doctors would say they should be mandatory, many would be completely ignorant of any disadvantages to it. Which is typical of most people. e.g. my point about people actively putting themselves in more danger, or people being more reckless around you as they think you are safe. Then there are other reasons like a drop in the amount of overall cyclists if mandatory, and so people are less used to encountering cyclists.

The guy who is now not cycling may now be seeing the same doctor 10 years earlier with obesity related issues. Will they journalist ask the doctor "do you think if this guy had cycled daily for the last 20 years would it have helped?".

The point was made that if a doctor who studies the overall good of the population was asked if he thinks if it is safer to wear helmets or if they should be made mandatory, then he will likely have read the studies and say could say no. I cannot remember the name of this type of doctor, could be related to pandemics or something.

Weepsie

Fractured an elbow coming off a bike a few years ago. Was asked was I wearing a helmet....

Andy From Sligo

Steoller wrote: »

.....making them compulsory increases the odds of having an accident in the first place.......

well - I really cannot get my head around why making them compulsory increases the odds of having an accident ... well OK maybe I get what I could call a theory that if people wear a helmet that it might make them feel a bit safer so they can try out different stunts or put too much confidence in a helmet protecting their whole bodies so it would cause them to take more risks ...er but then I think thats idiotic then - is this really what happens when people start to wear helmets they get more dangerous on bikes????

magicbastarder

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

what about 'experts' that think its safer to wear helmets and they save brain injuries ?

if you are going to mash your head into the concrete, i would be in agreement with the experts that i would prefer to do that wearing a helmet.
but that ignores the seeming fact that wearing a helmet actually affects the chance of your head being mashed into the concrete.