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

rubadub

terrydel wrote: »

I've rode a motorbike daily for years, and know plenty others whove done the same, and the idea that people behave differently (as in more risky) simply because of the lid on your head, is kinda absurd, I dont know a single motorcyclist who would ascribe to that.

If I was in a country without mandatory motorbike helmet laws, and had rented a bike & helmet, and if the helmet was stolen or lost I know I would not be driving back to the bike shop at the same speed and level of awareness as before. I would be far more risk averse, it would be absurd to think I would go the exact same speeds etc.

I also imagine that many bicycle helmet wearers who call people stupid or mad not to wear one would also likely still cycle home if theirs was lost/nicked, esp. if the only alternative was to walk many miles. I also reckon they would slow down and be more risk averse in general -as they are doing something they obviously usually consider utterly crazy and reckless. Some might walk of course but I really think that would be a minority, they could roll along at a brisk walking pace.

I saw what happened in school when hurling helmets and shinpads became popular, far more violent tackles etc.

terrydel

rubadub wrote: »

So you are not going to answer me, fine... You just continue calling people like me stupid, maybe you are scared of looking stupid/irrational/illogical yourself if you did answer.

It very likely saved my brothers life, I really dont feel the need to give some random stranger who's getting very wound up over the opinion of another random stranger, any more reason than that.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: The next person to call someone stupid gets a month off. Its a discussion, not a Junior Infants argument. Whether you are pro helmet, anti helmet or simply do not care, you are entitled to that opinion and so far there is nothing to indicate there is anything wrong with any of these positions.

terrydel

rubadub wrote: »

If I was in a country without mandatory motorbike helmet laws, and had rented a bike & helmet, and if the helmet was stolen or lost I know I would not be driving back to the bike shop at the same speed and level of awareness as before. I would be far more risk averse, it would be absurd to think I would go the exact same speeds etc.

Motorcyclists do not put a helmet on and change the way they ride, if you think otherwise then you clearly have never driven one, spent time with bikers or understand the culture.

rubadub

terrydel wrote: »

you clearly have never driven one

I have, you really do have some very odd logic.

ChrisJ84

rubadub wrote: »

I also imagine that many bicycle helmet wearers who call people stupid or mad not to wear one would also likely still cycle home if theirs was lost/nicked, esp. if the only alternative was to walk many miles. I also reckon they would slow down and be more risk averse in general -as they are doing something they obviously usually consider utterly crazy and reckless. Some might walk of course but I really think that would be a minority, they could roll along at a brisk walking pace.

An interesting wrinkle to this debate, for me anyway, is the fact that I feel safer on the bike when I'm wearing a helmet. I'd class myself as a fairly cautious cyclist, so I don't think wearing the helmet makes me more reckless. But I do know that I'm more relaxed and enjoy it more when I've got the helmet on. Obviously the product of all the helmet propaganda!

rubadub

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

An interesting wrinkle to this debate, for me anyway, is the fact that I feel safer on the bike when I'm wearing a helmet. I'd class myself as a fairly cautious cyclist, so I don't think wearing the helmet makes me more reckless.

I think people get hugely defensive when it is suggested they take greater risks or are "reckless". This is why I was turning the thing around as people might not mind admitting they might be more cautious.

People behave differently while wearing a helmet

to me this is pretty much the same as

People behave differently while NOT wearing a helmet

Some may not, as some would not see it as beneficial to their safety. e.g. if it became mandatory to wear helmets I do not think I would change my cycling, as I would not feel any safer with it, I might be a bit more cautious if forced to wear it as I believe it hinders my safety on my commute (while if proper moutainbiking I believe it benefits my safety).

The fact you say you feel safer on the bike with a helmet would lead me to presume you feel less safe without one, would this be the case? and if you were forced to cycle without one would you be more cautious at all? go slower etc? or would you behave the exact same?

If I was out walking on ice in a tshirt I would be far more cautious about falling than if I had thick layers on. I work with heavy machinery, if I do not have gloves, safety goggles, safety boots on etc I would be far more cautious at handling say cut steel, lifting heavy things, being around a lathe with eye risks etc. When I do have the safety equpiment on I do not think I act recklessly, but I certainly act differently. I would be worried to see somebody sifting though buckets of sharp steel with no gloves in the exact same manner as if they did have them.

magicbastarder

terrydel wrote: »

Motorcyclists do not put a helmet on and change the way they ride, if you think otherwise then you clearly have never driven one, spent time with bikers or understand the culture.

i'm quite sure they don't make a conscious decision to alter their behaviour, but no-one is saying they do.
you can't deny changing your behaviour subconsciously. because you don't know what your subconsious is doing.

rubadub

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm quite sure they don't make a conscious decision to alter their behaviour, but no-one is saying they do.

I would say some do, my uncle had some high power bikes and I remember him saying he would only go fast if wearing his leathers, following that mentality I would have guessed he would limit his speed even more if he had no helmet at all. As per my previous post I would certainly consciously drive slower on a motorbike if I had no helmet.

terrydel

rubadub wrote: »

I would say some do, my uncle had some high power bikes and I remember him saying he would only go fast if wearing his leathers, following that mentality I would have guessed he would limit his speed even more if he had no helmet at all. As per my previous post I would certainly consciously drive slower on a motorbike if I had no helmet.

Well I know loads of guys with high powered bikes, myself included, and we will all drive the very same regardless of leathers/helmets, leathers and helmets dont change any of us to veer towards taking greater risks.

rubadub

terrydel wrote: »

Well I know loads of guys with high powered bikes, myself included, and we will all drive the very same regardless of leathers/helmets, leathers and helmets dont change any of us to veer towards taking greater risks.

I think that is very unusual, I would slow down not just for fear of falling off, but the wind in my eyes would be terrible with no visor, even on a bicycle I do not like going that fast because of it. And again you are talking about taking greater risks, while the inital point was a change in behaviour. Again I think people are taking offence at this idea of being told they might "take greater risks", while they might more freely admit to being more cautious without the usual safety gear.

At the moment one of my brakes is dodgy on my bike, I conciously go slower because of it.


This study went pretty much as I would have expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helmets

In one experimental study, adults accustomed to wearing helmets cycled more slowly without a helmet, but no difference in helmeted and unhelmeted cycling speed was found for cyclists who do not usually wear helmets.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01589.x

5. CONCLUSIONS
Our results show increased cycling speed and decreased risk perception in a helmet‐on compared to a helmet‐off condition among cyclists used to wearing helmets, a finding that is in line with the theory of risk compensation. However, for those cyclists not used to helmets there were no differences in either risk or behavior between the helmet‐off and helmet‐on conditions.

doozerie

terrydel wrote: »

Well I know loads of guys with high powered bikes, myself included, and we will all drive the very same regardless of leathers/helmets, leathers and helmets dont change any of us to veer towards taking greater risks.

"Risk Compensation" is a real and recognised thing. As mentioned above though, because it is largely subconscious, we typically don't even realise that we are succumbing to it.

As one example, I consider myself to be someone who puts my personal safety way ahead of other factors when I ride a bike. I make a determined effort to not do things which are clearly stupid. I recall some years ago finding myself in a cycle lane with a bus to my right and a bus stop ahead. I realised that the bus was drifting left and it seemed like it might pull in on top of me as we approached the bus stop.

I happened to be wearing a helmet at the time, and of the various options available to me one of the ones that leapt to mind was to hop the side of my helmeted head against the side of the bus to alert the bus driver to my presence. Some voice in my head suggested this would be safer than hitting the side of the bus with my hand as it would leave both hands on the brakes.

As I sit here right now I can't rationalise that thought process at all, it was incredibly stupid, yet at the time it seemed perfectly rational. I wouldn't have contemplated doing it with an un-helmeted head, the presence of a helmet somehow left me believing that it would be fine, and this despite me being very sceptical about the likelihood of a helmet helping much in a collision.


As another example, which I find funnier because I'm not the idiot this time: a job which involved knocking someone's shed to rebuild it. But there was a surface-mounted electrical cable leading into the shed. The house owner thought there was no power in the cable but couldn't be sure. He didn't want the hassle of getting an electrician in so he decided to "decommission" the cable himself. He grabbed a cold chisel, a lump hammer, and a pair of thick gloves. He put on his wellies, looked at the rubber soles, uttered a "grand so!", and severed the cable with one blow of the hammer against the chisel.

Cue a flash, a loud bang, the chisel flew ...somewhere..., and he staggered back a few wobbly feet. But he survived, so his "safety" measures worked. Kinda. Not sure he'd recommend it though.

rubadub

This "biker" admits he changes with a leather suit.
https://www.rideapart.com/articles/253429/why-wearing-racing-leathers-on-public-roads-may-be-a-bad-idea/

There is probably no safer riding attire than a one-piece leather racing suit. But if wearing one on public roads pushes you to ride at speeds that are dangerous for you and others, then you’re undercutting the effectiveness of wearing leathers to begin with.

When I slip into a race suit, I can feel a change in myself. A proper fitting suit transforms my posture, my confidence and attitude. Zipped up, a set of leathers prevents me from standing completely upright, my shoulders are pushed forward and my arms hang in front of me – giving me the aggressive stance of a motorcycle racer. The internal pads of the suit bulk up my otherwise skinny frame and the hardened sliders on my shoulders, elbows and knees make me feel impervious to the blur of asphalt whizzing beneath my motorcycle as it approaches and exceeds 100 mph.

For me, the protection that a race suit offers also provides equal parts confidence. By numbing the effects of fear, leathers allow me to push a little further toward my personal limits. Which is wonderful on the racetrack, but no so much on the open road. It’s because of this change in my riding that I do not wear race leathers on the road, and maybe you shouldn't either.

terrydel

rubadub wrote: »

This "biker" admits he changes with a leather suit.
https://www.rideapart.com/articles/253429/why-wearing-racing-leathers-on-public-roads-may-be-a-bad-idea/

You can find evidence to back up any opinion you like on either side of an argument, we all can, I can only go on my own life experience which has heavily involved bikes (motorcycles) for years, I'm not saying you are 100% right or wrong either. My issue is simply the notion that people take bigger risks when they don a helmet, which my experience says is absurd. I dont take offence to anyone, least of all strangers on the internet, who might be suggesting that wearing a helmet makes me take bigger risks with my safety, I simply think that for the most part its an absurd notion.
You got all offended when I suggested that I think people who dont wear them cycling are stupid for taking that decision, well if people are that easily offended then its not worth debating it all to be honest.

rubadub

terrydel wrote: »

I'm not saying you are 100% right or wrong either.

this is just getting ridiculous, it was clear to my you thought I was 100% wrong when saying this very definite statement.

terrydel wrote: »

Motorcyclists do not put a helmet on and change the way they ride, if you think otherwise then you clearly have never driven one, spent time with bikers or understand the culture.

terrydel wrote: »

My issue is simply the notion that people take bigger risks when they don a helmet.

again you keep going on the defensive as I reckon you think this is a negative thing to do... I think it is very sensible, rational & logical to change your actions depending on safety equipment.

People behave differently while wearing a helmet

My experience is that people who consider safety equipment that they regularly use, and consider to be benefical, will take more care if they are doing the same tasks without the equipment at hand. In most cases it would be absurd not to take more care.

terrydel

rubadub wrote: »

this is just getting ridiculous, it was clear to my you thought I was 100% wrong when saying this very definite statement.





again you keep going on the defensive as I reckon you think this is a negative thing to do...



My experience is that people who consider safety equipment that they regularly use, and consider to be benefical, will take more care if they are doing the same tasks without the equipment at hand. In most cases it would be absurd not to take more care.

the whole debate started when you got all upset and defensive simply because I said people who dont wear helmets cycling are stupid for doing so, my God if that is the epitome of snowflake defensiveness then I dont know what is.

rubadub

I think you got annoyed with yourself when you copped on

rubadub wrote: »

You must know plenty of incredibly stupid people, depending on your age then likely yourself and very likely your parents.

No wonder you could not give answers to several of my questions, would have shown yourself up.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: FFS, handbags down. Engage the post, not the poster. Calling people stupid or snowflakes means your not engaging the post, but going for the poster.

LAst chance, I don't care who started anything, i don't want PMs explaining your side of things, just stop it now.

ChrisJ84

rubadub wrote: »

I think people get hugely defensive when it is suggested they take greater risks or are "reckless". This is why I was turning the thing around as people might not mind admitting they might be more cautious.

rubadub wrote: »

The fact you say you feel safer on the bike with a helmet would lead me to presume you feel less safe without one, would this be the case? and if you were forced to cycle without one would you be more cautious at all? go slower etc? or would you behave the exact same?

This whole topic makes people defensive! I probably could have explained myself better, but basically I agree with you. Of course I'll behave differently, in the same way that I'll be more cautious in the wet, in heavier traffic, in bad visibility etc. I think there is a real (albeit marginal) safety benefit to wearing a helmet, but not wearing one isn't inherently dangerous (or stupid :rolleyes:) any more than it is to go out on a wet day.

My point was that I feel safer and more relaxed, and enjoy myself more. That's all. So much of this debate assumes that there is a binary answer based on measurable data, but it's pretty clear that isn't the case. It's interesting to me that you feel less safe commuting with a helmet as I'm the opposite, but that's exactly why it should be an individual decision.

Steoller

terrydel wrote: »

You can find evidence to back up any opinion you like on either side of an argument, we all can

rubadub and I have provided links to studies showing a behavioural effect in wearing helmets. I have not seen you provide the same to show there is not.

Hurrache

Oh dear.
https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1115351543447019521

but this is a bit of sense
https://twitter.com/ConorAAIreland/status/1115540068830195712

But this eejit makes his obligatory appearance
https://twitter.com/CllrKRedmond/status/1115353433865953282

magicbastarder

i threw my oar in.

https://twitter.com/JSWeetabix/status/1115545068688027649

Cookie_Monster

NZ should be on that list, I thought NZ and Aus were the only two...
Wikipedia agrees, all others are not universally applied

rubadub

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.html

This Danish campaign poster reads:

"A walking helmet is a good helmet"
"Traffic safety isn't just for cyclists. The pedestrians of Denmark actually have a higher risk of head injury. The Danish Road Safety Council recommends walking helmets for pedestrians and other good folk in high risk groups."

The slogan is catchy in Danish since it kind of rhymes. All in all it's a brilliant project. Let's save some lives.

The new walking helmets will be available in the Danish Cyclists Union's [Dansk cyklist forbund] shop. Although, as the Danish Cyclists' Union, the Road Safety Council and Trygfonden have been quick to point out:

"A bike helmet is a fine substitute for walking helmets, so there's no need to take it off when you get off your bike. Keep it on throughout the day for maximum safety."

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/developments/headband/

The Centre has been evaluating the concept of a protective headband for car occupants. In about 44 percent of cases of occupant head injury, a protective headband, such as the one illustrated, would have provided some benefit. One estimate has put the potential benefit of such a device (in terms of reduced societal Harm) as high as $380 million, compared with $123 million for padding the upper interior of the car. This benefit derives from the fact that in a crash, the head strikes objects other than those that could be padded inside the car.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^

helmets for monks?

rubadub

This was a great idea, sign is bogus (I had wondered if the Danish one was too.)



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4163496/No-helmet-no-run-signs-spring-Bondi-Bronte.html

Grassey

could-volvo-and-poc-end-helmet-debate-

The Swedish brands have teamed up for what they claim is a "world-first" series of crash tests that will assess the impact on cycle helmets in collisions with cars – and, by comparing the results with those of existing regulations regarding pedestrian head protection, will enable them “to make a direct comparison between wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet.”

I'd be surprised if the end result wasn't favouring elwearing helmets... Simply because the study is being done by a company that makes its money by selling helmets... Working with a car company whose safety feature a while back was high vis paint for cyclists.

Chips Lovell

Turkeys never vote for Christmas

rubadub

Could Volvo and POC end the helmet debate?

I am left wondering what the writer thinks the "helmet debate" is actually about.

buffalo

Grassey wrote: »

I'd be surprised if the end result wasn't favouring elwearing helmets... Simply because the study is being done by a company that makes its money by selling helmets... Working with a car company whose safety feature a while back was high vis paint for cyclists.

The question is will they repeat the study for car occupants? And people using stairs... people drinking alcohol... people riding scooters...