does the same apply if you’re dutch?
Probably not.

Curious, so it’s not about helmets, it’s about helmets in this specific environment? Kinda puts a different spin on a lot of the arguments doesn’t it?

Yeah sorry aracer, it is a cop out but I just don’t trust my fellow road using country folk enough not to, which makes me sad 🙁 I have been knocked off before a couple of times, only hit my head once though and to be honest the helmet probably only stopped me leaving some skin on the tarmac rather than offering any impact protection. It’s hard to rationalise but I do wear one, I’m not preachy about it though, I’m pro-choice, anti-compulsion.

Off-road it’s more about my own stupidity…

Not everyone’s a middle aged IT manager who can’t ride off road without completing a skills course……

The most sanctimonious comment on STW ever.

It’s your head mate, and I’m glad the sheer size of it has kept you on the bike so far. Of course it’s your choice not to protect it, but if you think lack of skills is the only thing that’ll have you off a bike you must be very naive.

i wear a helmet for my kids sake, if it means not leaving my kids with no father then its worth it to me, i couldnt care less about what i look like, because i look and act stupid without it on anyway, btw ive been knocked off my bike six times during my 40 yrs of cycling, so i tend to cycle on the pavement as much as possible, its safer to have an argument with a pedestrian than over a ton of metal and rubber

So you also wear one whilst walking, driving and using the stairs?

I’d just like to say a racer, that I’ve had two serious accidents involving my head on a bike. I’ve not yet done so whilst walking, driving or walking down the stairs. Still time though I guess, eh.

Pedestrians also hit their heads on tarmac

But as I said – there are no cars on the pavements. No-one to knock me off, and I won’t fall over on my own.

Let’s get a few things clear, shall we?

1) You seem to think my head is as much at risk whilst walking as it is whilst cycling – yes? MY head, not a statistical average head.

2) You also seem to think that my head is at similar risk in a car. That’s MY head in MY car with all its protective features – yes?

Both of those things need evidence. And I mean evidence that relates specifically to people and cars just like me and mine. So subtract pissed people (and the rest) from the walking stats and subtract crappy old cars and boy racers from the car stats.

3) Do you think that hitting a bare head on tarmac is no different to one protected by two inches of foam? Why? Surely you’re not playing the rotational injury card?

If you’re going to keep banging on and on and on and **** ON about climbing the stairs and driving, you’ll need to show me exactly why it’s more dangerous FOR ME. Your constant repetition without adding anything to the debate is really getting old.

For me its quite simply “I’d rather wear one and not need it, than not wear one and need it”.

As a comparison we could all get by walking round with no shoes on, however most people do wear shoes? Why because amongst other things they help protect you feet from cuts from glass,stones, infection from standing in something you would rather not etc.

To the OP if you see the benefit/dangers for wearing one off road I cant quite see why your so averse to wearing one on road, hitting the pavement at 20mph will probably do as much damage as hitting a tree at the same speed.

The most sanctimonious comment on STW ever.

It’s your head mate, and I’m glad the sheer size of it has kept you on the bike so far.

😀 sorry. The chap did say something really cocky and tried to sound like a smart arse. I didn’t have a witty come back and I think I’m still a bit riled by it.

I have fallen off and concussed myself a few times; I think it’s much more likely when you’re pushing your limits. And if your limits are the North Face trail at grizedale, or the Pleney run in Morzine; always make sure you wear a helmet.

No.

You’re completely missing the point – I did try and explain earlier. You (and steviecapt amongst others) are being absolutist about wearing helmets on bikes. There is some risk, there is some chance of a helmet helping, therefore you see no good reason not to wear one for the very small chance that it will help you.

Yet it seems you don’t apply the same criteria to other activities. In those cases you say “the risk is small”. Well some of us also consider the risk sufficiently low for cycling.

You can’t have it both ways – if you’re going to be absolutist for wearing one whilst cycling, then exactly the same arguments apply for other activities where there is some risk, even if the risk is different. If you want to argue you don’t need one for other activities because the risk is low (despite clearly existing), then you have to accept that some other people also consider the risk sufficiently low for some cycling activities (I’d happily argue that some of the time I don’t wear one I am at no more risk of head injury than you are whilst walking).

So subtract pissed people (and the rest) from the walking stats and subtract crappy old cars and boy racers from the car stats.

What about the cycling stats? Can we subtract the young, the elderly, the inexperienced, the drunk, the reckless from those? I’m happy to accept that your personal risk whilst walking is low, but not so sure you’ve accurately assessed your personal risk whilst driving compared to your personal risk whilst cycling.

I think its an amazing testament to the success of the cycling helmet that their widespread use has reduced the risk of dying from a head injury whilst cycling down to that of the level of walking. GO HELMETS!

Well. This is anecdote, but let’s do a little thought experiment about risk: Out of my circle of acquaintances in the past 2-3 years. I can think of 5 people who have injured themselves while cycling. 0 while walking, 0 while driving. 0 kicked to death by donkeys. The floor is open.

**** me this is tedious.

Before this trollfest gets locked, as I always used to say to TJ, if you really don’t believe a helmet will protect your head, lets go outside and smash your head against a wall or the road at cycling speed, first with a helmet, then without, and lets see which one you prefer after 😉

If our roads were as safe as Copenhagen I’d happily cruise around without a helmet, sadly the reality isn’t like that here.

How many of those were doing the sort of cycling where I choose not to wear a helmet (I’d be very confident the answer is zero)? Come to that, noting your wording, how many had head injuries or damaged their helmets?

I don’t know of anybody who’s ever had a head injury whilst doing any of the specific things I choose not to use a helmet for, though I’ve heard of people doing so whilst driving and walking.

I’m sure he was very impressed with that strawman.

I quite agree that you can distinguish between different types of cycling (albeit the only time I have hit my head was while commuting). The actual score was 1 mtbing and the rest road riding. However, the point I’m trying to make is that just using the raw numbers to ‘prove’ the risks involved is just as unconvincing as anecdote. My subjective feeling is that cycling is much more risky than walking, enough for it to be understandable why people feel the need to wear helmets. (Even though I think they over-estimate the protection provided and the absolute risk involved) I am aware that this means I sort of agree with molgrips 😳

Here is a good reason why I don’t wear a helmet (and all based on 40+ years of cycling)

My risk assessment of cycling is very low and I have fallen over more when not cycling, i.e. I didn’t wear a helmet when going out drinking (a lot in my twenties), I didn’t wear a helmet yesterday when feeding the chickens but slipped over on a wet patio tile that had mud on it, I didn’t wear a helmet when X, etc, etc,

I have never seen any scientific evidence that suggests they actually work. Even if they did work I have no more need for one cycling than anything else (as above)

I don’t like wearing them

If I was worried about knocking my head I would wear a full face motorcycle helmet as that has much more evidence behind it but no-one is going to do that are they.

Do helmet threads always descend into a bunfight?

Do helmet threads always descend into a bunfight?

Yes. It is a bit like religion.

– The pro helmet are the religious zealots who believe everyone should live their life as they do

– The anti helmet are the atheists. Don’t see many of these as most are agnostics waiting for a sign from god before deciding

Wonder if Jesus would have worn a helmet

You (and steviecapt amongst others) are being absolutist about wearing helmets on bikes

No, I’m not. Read back. I was talking about the relative risks of cycling, and how we don’t seem to have any conclusive stats. In the absence of which I have made a subjective assessment.

The reason I always wear one, and make my kids do so, is to form a habit. I always put my keys on the rack, I always put my wallet on the stairs, so I alwys know where they are. I always wear a helmet when cycling so that when the unexpected happens I have some protection.

Most people on this thread seem happy to wear helmets off-road, but they think road is safer. I don’t, at least for me. The accident I am most worried about with regards my head is being taken out by a vehichle and smacking my head on an A pillar or bouncing off the vehicle and hitting it on the hard tarmac or a concrete bollard or something.

I still put it on if I am going to the shops for the same reason I out my seatbelt on when driving a short distance. I want to have the habit, so that I never end up forgetting it or not having it when I end up needing it.

But as I said – there are no cars on the pavements. No-one to knock me off, and I won’t fall over on my own.

Just a couple small points

A cycle helmet is not designed to provide protection in the case of a collision with another motor vehicle. Expecting any piece of safety equipment to perform outwith it’s original design is at best unwise.

Pedestrians are killed by collisions with cars even though they (the cars) aren’t supposed to be there.

I have fallen off and concussed myself a few times; I think it’s much more likely when you’re pushing your limits. And if your limits are the North Face trail at grizedale, or the Pleney run in Morzine; always make sure you wear a helmet.

Neither are at my limits, I wouldn’t ride either without a lid. I was taking a run down something I’d done loads when something different happened and a wheel slipped out and I hit the deck. Still not been on a bike in 7 weeks, when my head hit the slab I was glad I was wearing a lid, this time last year clipped a branch which flung me over the bars, wrote off a lid, neither trail was at my limits.

Still your choice unless your racing or in an event in which case it’s not.

When you walk on the road do you ware a helmet molgrips?

The point everyone who does not always ware a helemt is trying to make is that there is such a small risk of having a bad head injery when cycling on the road (not racing e.t.c) that it is not the massivly dangerous activity that people make it out to be. Simalar risks would be using a step ladder without a helmet, walking on wet rocks without a helmet. there are increased risks there I suspect grater than that of cycling but no one gets their knickers in a twist about people doing those activities sans helmet.

I wear one. Have done for 20+ years. Once hit a car at red lights, absolutely, sentient my fault but ended up on the parcel shelf of the poor unsuspecting motorist.

I cut my chin but didn’t have so much as a bruised forehead. I can imagine it would have hurt note had I not been wearing a helmet. Everyone has lapses of concentration so to say you’ll never have an ‘ at fault’ accident when on the road is naive tui day the least.

Just a thought as well, haven’t deaths and serious had injuries come down in cars since airbags have been fitted as standard? Suggests having something between you head and something hard is usually a good thing.

if our roads were as safe as Copenhagen I’d happily cruise around without a helmet, sadly the reality isn’t like that here.

+

Just a couple small points

A cycle helmet is not designed to provide protection in the case of a collision with another motor vehicle.

And that’s even more curious isn’t it?

We accept that if it weren’t for all those pesky cars that drive into us, we’d be fine without them, yet we also accept that they’re not designed to protect against an impact from a car.

So the kind of impact they are designed for would surely be just as common in Copenhagen? ie: non vehicle-induced accident which results in a bump on the noggin.

Mostly people seem to accept that the risk of a head injury while just bimbling to the shops on the pavement or a cycle path is low enough that it doesn’t require a helmet, in the same way that walking to the shops doesn’t, in Aracers words ‘acceptably low’. Yet the fear of being hit by a vehicle causes a lot of us to change the assessment.

As usual this isn’t an discussion about ‘helmets’ in isolation, it’s about the level of risk (perceived and actual) in riding a bike on British roads, and the bizarre notion that the most appropriate way to combat that is to start armouring the vulnerable instead of tackling the (external) source of the danger.

*ignoring sport, as pretty much everyone seems to be in agreement that they’re no bad thing if you’re going to be bouncing around off trees.

We all know that in Holland and the like they don’t wear helmets but do you think some of this is to do with the types of bikes they ride. Whenever you see pictures they are always riding the classic dutch bike that doesn’t have a top tube. This is not really a speed daemon and is far easier to mount and dismount without falling off. The majority of times I have come off my bike when commuting is mud, wet leaves, oil, going to fast, etc and not anything to do with cars. Just wondering if you ride a type of bike which you can’t go as fast on, is a more sit up and beg design and is easier to jump off, does this reduce the amount of times you fall off and therefore need a helmet. In the UK you hardly ever see these types of bikes. Is the danger with cycling on the roads all to do with cars or is it the types of bikes we ride?

I should also say that I have completely smashed helmets both off road and on road with no fault of others and either as pure accident or my own fault. When I think back, if I didn’t have a helmet on I think I would be in a sorry sorry state now. When I broke my collar bone at Cwn Carn my helmet was decimated. That would have proper smarted.

A cycle helmet is not designed to provide protection in the case of a collision with another motor vehicle. Expecting any piece of safety equipment to perform outwith it’s original design is at best unwise.

That’s just ridiculous. Just because it’s not designed specifically to do it, doens’t mean it won’t.

Bottom line – I don’t mind wearing one, and it I believe it will offer more protection than nothing. It’s really very simple indeed. The antis are making a huge deal out of this. I wonder why? Is it being made into a personal issue perhaps?

it is not the massivly dangerous activity that people make it out to be.

Talk to them then, not me. I’m not making it out to be massively dangerous – if it was, I wouldn’t be doing it!

Is the danger with cycling on the roads all to do with cars or is it the types of bikes we ride?

99% <-> 1%

Is my guess* but if you can find evidence that a significant portion of accidents are caused by having a top tube I’ll gladly change my mind!

FWIW, dutch bikes may be easy to dismount, but they are not as easy to stop, they are mostly heavy old lumps with crappy crappy brakes.

* saying ‘cars’ is a little unfair, it’s a combination of our crappy infrastructure and the attitude of some people operating vehicles of various kinds.

Bottom line – I don’t bother wearing one on the road, I believe it offers protection for something that’s not going to happen so why bother. It’s really very simple indeed. The pros are making a huge deal out of this. I wonder why? Is it being made into a personal issue perhaps?

Crushed my new Giro Atmos into the side of a 4×4 at 20 mph. Broke lots of things (15 fractures), but not my skull (Six facial fractures immediately below the helmet line. Not even a headache, nor concussion.

Helmets are not designed to smash apart, just crush and decelerate the brain slightly slower than a direct impact. Mine did just that and it is easy to see the crumpled zone (i’ll post a photo later). A simple sum shows that this impact is the same as a fall from about 4m onto a flat surface. Helmets are tested for a drop of 2m. So it did its job#.

I bought another and always wear one, for the next @#*% that turns across me without warning.

#Saved me a likely skull fracture and some probable concussion but none of this “saved my life” nonsense, please.

I believe it offers protection for something that’s not going to happen

You think you’re never going to be knocked off?

molgrips – Member

I believe it offers protection for something that’s not going to happen

You think you’re never going to be knocked off?

I believe it offers protection for something that’s not going to happen so why bother. It’s really very simple indeed.

is this post genuine or am I seeing things? (possible head concussion??)

muddy9mtb – Member

is this post genuine or am I seeing things? (possible head concussion??)

Heaven forbid somebody has an opinion contrary to yours.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/pedestrians_and_cyclists_unprotected_road_users/walking_and_cycling_as_transport_modes_en.htm#_1.2.2_Cycling_as

Per journey, using the deaths per km figures from earlier in the thread and the average journey lengths cited in the link above you are three times more likely to be be killed on every bicycle journey.

Kilo is NEVER going to be knocked off his bike on the road.

Why are you so confident?

Yup, but that’s the crux of it, relative vs absolute risk. “3 times more likely” doesn’t mean it’s likely, it just means it’s less unlikely. It’s not in itself an argument for protection.

(I wear a helmet on the road; but I think the statistical/logical argument for it is pretty bloody weak frankly and not helped by the very low level of helmet standards. It’s not been proved to my satisfaction that it’s worthwhile but that’s OK because I don’t need it to be proven, most risk calls we make aren’t based on proof. You’d feel a right arse if you woke up dead because of a 1-in-a-million preventable head injury.)

If you replace kilo’s “not going to” with “vanuishingly unlikely to” then it makes perfect sense. Basically once a specific risk gets so small, it’s not unreasonable to treat it as effectively absent.

I know, bad science. But everyone else is chipping in with not quite in context statistics and “facts” and I didn’t want to feel left out.

Yet you presumably do mind wearing one for driving?