Forum menu
Anyone else ever destroyed a cycle helmet in a crash, and in the subsequent assessment just been plain thankful for the fact you were wearing one?
Yup, tearing down George Street in Glasgow, green light but of course Numpty McEejit and her clan decided the guy in the white shirt riding a bright orange General Lee was invisible and walked out Abbey Road style. The van I went into the back of avoiding them had a fairly hefty dent, as did the helmet I was wearing and the forks.
cycling is actually very safe. Or at least if you are competent on a bike
Only if you ignore external factors such as third parties or mechanical failure.
Nope. I saw what he was saying.
My point was that data can be cut up to say what ever you want.
Wonder what number of the cyclists in your data had helmets on to skew the data ........
Oh **** more flaws in the data analysis.....
Mean while.me heads still softer than concrete.
Edit. I remember the nick of that bike SK. You did a good job of the general.
Only if you ignore external factors such as third parties or mechanical failure.
nope - if you look at the actual stats. KSIs per mile are very low.
this is a large part of the debate. People think cycling is dangerous when it really is not. Insisting on wearing helmets makes people think it must be dangerous.
tinas - the car comparison is per hour of activity 🙂
Well spotted trailrat 🙂
Only if you ignore external factors such as third parties or mechanical failure.
And evidence, in favour of anecdote.
Cycle fatalities ( from my link above) are 29 per billion miles. thats not dangerous.
No cynic al - if you look at the hard data cycling is not a dangerous activity Links above.
Its anecdotes that make people think its dangerous
People on here like to think they are taking part in some extreme dangerous activity that requires special skills and outfits but actually its a perfectly normal safe activity - similar danger to walking but you are not crying out for walking helmets. Walking helmets would save far more lives and drinking helmets even more
if you look at the hard data cycling is not a dangerous activity Links above.
But only if you ignore that a significant number of your data set is likely to have had helmets on.
Your using largely irrelevant evidence to back up your view point.
In 2019, car occupants accounted for 42% of road deaths, pedestrians 27%, motorcyclists 19% and pedal cyclists 6%
or 736 died in cars 470 pedestrians. 336 motorcyclists 100 cyclists
TJ I must have expressed myself incorrectly (entirely likely) - we are in agreement.
Trail rat seems to have evidence that helmets make a significant difference, which no one else has.
No I am not Trailrat - firstly helmet wearing is a minority. Secondly most road deaths to cyclists are not head injuries. Read the stuff in the cycling Uk link for analysis.
Also note that in every case where they statisticians have looked at longitudinal studies of helmet wearing against deaths there is no significant reduction in deaths as helmet wearing goes up.
People on here like to think they are taking part in some extreme dangerous activity that requires special skills and outfits but actually its a perfectly normal safe activity
But this is a key point that most people overlook and which totally undermines the whole debate.
I've hammered across rocks down the side of a mountain on the bleeding edge of control and for that I'll take a helmet, thanks very much, because there's a non-negligible chance of me binning it and if I do then it's pretty guaranteed that it'll hurt. If I'm calmly pedalling to the shops or the station I won't, because it's barely any different to walking. Somewhere between those things are all the other things like going on a road ride or a gravel ride or towing the kids along fire roads or hacking a mountain bike through my local and largely untechnical trails—for none of which I personally wear a helmet, but for most of which many other people would. Which is all fine.
But some people are "taking part in some extreme dangerous activity that requires special skills and outfits", others are taking part in "a perfectly normal safe activity", and quite a few are (at different times) doing both.
The whole problem comes about with statements like yours where the two are conflated. That's how we get to "cycling is dangerous and warrants PPE; I am cycling to the shops; ergo cycling to the shops is dangerous and warrants PPE". That's the exact false syllogism that influencers play on when they want people to reject cycling and choose a car instead. It's daft to fall for the same thing in a discussion about what actually (albeit subjectively) does or doesn't warrant a helmet.
In what context . I mean boxing was deemed safe with head blows right up until it wasn't.
Concussions in sports is a hot topic . Long lasting effects from minor blows to the head .
As I said I'm not for compulsory I just think it's short sighted and antiquated view point not to given the lack of down sides But then given the age of the protagonists. It makes sense.
I'm done you can't reason with dyed in the wool
But as many cyclist casualties as motorcyclists and three times more than pedestrians. So significantly more dangerous than walking.
So now we are saying helmets cuase deaths .
nbope - not at all - or not directly
The number of casualties is so small and the protective effect of helmets are so marginal that other secondary effects outweigh the protective benefits. ie in Australia it seems that the experienced safe cyclists stopped riding leaving just the crashers riding - thats one theory why there was no reduction. there is also risk compensation and also safety in numbers as numbers dropped
the stabiliser - read the stats.
Concussions in sports is a hot topic . Long lasting effects from minor blows to the head .
As I said I’m not for compulsory I just think it’s short sighted and antiquated view point not to .
But the origin of this wasn't anything to do with sport. It was about getting around by bicycle in places where people live and work.
If we have to bring sport into it every time then let's tell everyone with a car to watch Romain Grosjean's crash and tell them they need to tool up for that sort of thing the next time they drive half a mile to Tesco.
I did. You need to read the page before the one you're quoting from.
Concussions in sports is a hot topic . Long lasting effects from minor blows to the head .
in 50 years of cycling I have hit my head once IIRC I had a helmet on and it was a glancing blow on a low hanging tree limb with no injury. In 40 years of drinking I have hit my head 3 times each time leading to injury
I clearly need a drinking helmet more than a cycling one
Here you go TJ https://twitter.com/beerhelmetsnow
And by the way the plural of that anecdote does happen to be data: the top two causes of brain trauma in the UK are motor vehicles and alcohol (which obviously sometimes coincide). Source being some hospital admissions based research from a few years ago which I'm too lazy to go and find again (sorry).
If we have to bring sport into it every time then let’s tell everyone with a car to watch Romain Grosjean’s crash and tell them they need to tool up for that sort of thing the next time they drive half a mile to Tesco.
Your point would be relevent if cars bore any resembelence to the vehicle he was driving.
How ever a head blow is a head blow. Be it in sport Or otherwise. It just so happens that in sport it's being given attention it deserves by modern thinking and technology
trail_rat
As I said I’m not for compulsory I just think it’s short sighted and antiquated view point not to given the lack of down sides
If there are no downsides do you wear a helmet while walking or driving?
There are downsides. Another bit of gear to buy and look after. To find when going out. Uncomfortable compared to being bareheaded.
I know of two cases where hillwalkers slipped on easy ground and suffered fatal head injuries. Where is the campaign for hillwalking helmets?
Your point would be relevent if cars bore any resembelence to the vehicle he was driving.
Yeah, don't overstretch the analogy: the point is merely that the parameters of sport are totally different to the parameters of going to buy some milk.
Sport is about performance and testing oneself, even if (sometimes especially if) that incurs elevated risk. It almost always comes with an enthusiasm for associated equipment and a marked separation from non-sporting activity that's reinforced by using dedicated equipment or clothing. People who cycle for sport do it for the sake of it.
Buying milk is about wanting to sit down and have a cup of tea. People who cycle for milk would probably prefer to do it in whatever they're wearing at the time and mostly just want a cup of tea a bit sooner than they would if they'd have walked.
HHow ever a head blow is a head blow. Be it in sport Or otherwise. It just so happens that in sport it’s being given attention it deserves by modern thinking and technology
But… you're still not wearing one for driving or walking or anything else, yeah? Despite maintaining that there is a "lack of down sides".
I mean, if you wear a helmet for everything then your argument is watertight, and ironically enough it's hats off to you. But if you don't then have you googled "cognitive dissonance"?
cognitive dissonance
Thats a bar in San francisco in gibsons bridge trilogy IIRC
Oh - that was cognitive dissidents
Cycling is three times more likely to cause you injury than walking, see TJs book of stats.
Re driving you might have a point
Also…
Your point would be relevent if cars bore any resembelence to the vehicle he was driving.
…it's not like bikes are all the same, either.
Despite maintaining that there is a “lack of down sides”.
I can think of one downside to wearing it in the car. I'd need the sun roof open. Pretty sure 2 ton of car baring down in my neck would be a downside should the helmet come into play.
As I said when I start walking at 30 ....or I'll bring that down.... Even more than 10 mph I'll think about the helmet . Other wise I'll just assume your making straw comparisons to drive your arguement.
But yeah other than its about as inconvienant as putting a jacket on what were the downsides again.
People on here like to think they are taking part in some extreme dangerous activity that requires special skills and outfits
No we don't.
Cycling is three times more likely to cause you injury than walking, see TJs book of stats.
Re driving you might have a point
No, my point is nothing to do with stats. My point was a counter to the arguments of "you should protect against any blow to the head" and "there's no downside to wearing a helmet". They're utter hogwash, because every single person who makes those arguments behaves entirely contrary to them, just so long as they don't have a bicycle between their legs.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-brick-wall/
Indeed you appear to have posted a random irrelevant picture of a motor bike and a bicycle to draw comparisons between an f1 car which other than having and engine and 4 wheels has nothing in common with a road going vehicle
what were the downsides again.
They're of subjective importance. You find them negligible, I don't. Many people feel similarly to you, many others feel similarly to me, and all the shades in between. It doesn't really matter. If someone personally finds that some aspect of wearing a helment is a downside then who are you to claim that it's not a downside for them any more than I am to say that it must be a downside for you.
Just accept that you have a perspective that is yours—acquired through your own experiences and preferences and your own way of riding a bike and how that activity (whether it comes in one flavour or many) fits into your own life—and that your perspective is not the only one, and not the only valid one.
a random irrelevant picture of a motor bike
Er, that's a pedal cycle.
See? An F1 car and a Ford Mondeo are so similar that you can recognise that they're both motor cars; bicycles are so diverse you can't even recognise what they are 🙂
Indeed the cats skinned both ways
I'm concerned that if I subscribe to your way of thinking and throw my helmet away j should surely die by the sword and remove the seatbelts the ROP and the SIP from my car perhaps the abs too After all it's all unnessecary
I mean after all I only use it to go get milk I don't race it for sport.
Edit it's a Honda downhill bike from about 15 years ago. Looks like an ebike on a phone screen
If a helmet is essential why not a full body armour and neck brace?
Full roll cages for bicycles mandatory
Absolutely now your getting it* teej
*My bingo books nearly complete anyway.
I’m concerned that if I subscribe to your way of thinking and throw my helmet away
Obviously I'm not asking you to do any of that and I realise you're being a bit facetious 😉 I'm just hoping folks might accept that if someone has a different perception of the risk they face themselves (and specifically that; risk posed to others is a very different matter) then that's ok, and if someone has a different perception of whether a helmet is bothersome in any way, then that's ok, and if someone does certain things to reduce their level of risk but those things are inherently visible in the way that a helmet isn't, then that's at worst ok and just possibly even wiser than wearing a helmet and not adapting their behaviour.
Though if you fancy some food for thought on seat belts…
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/
Compulsory helmet use for cycling would see a detrimental effect on cycle use. Which as minority road users, we need more people to cycle for the government to invest in safer cycling infrastructure. So it would be a bad thing for all cyclists.
Currently helmet use is not compulsory. Therefore it is a personal choice and that should be the end of it. You may not agree that someone thinks its safe to cycle without a helmet, whilst you think it is dangerous and risky. It is thier choice.
As an example, I know plenty of motorbike riders that won't ride a motorbike in anything other than full power rangers set of leathers with body armour, as this offers the best protection in the event of a crash, no matter how short their journey is. Whereas I'm more than happy to ride my motorbike around town in jeans and t-shirt. Some might say it's dangerous and a risk and I shouldn't do it. But to me, doing 30mph round town on a motorbike is less of a risk, than riding my road bike downhill at 45+mph in nothing more for body protection than lycra. And that is my personal choice. If it became compulsory to wear some form of protective clothing for motorbiking I could see that having a massive reduction on motorbike journeys made. I Know I'd certainly use mine less.
Probably 95% of my bike rides I wear a helmet, but there is the occasional time I pop to the shops where I won't bother. For those occasions I just don't see the need to wear one.
tinas – the car comparison is per hour of activity 🙂
That's why I said you were wrong.
Per mile, the car is more than 15x safer than cycling (1.8 Vs 29.7 KSI per billion miles)
Per hour, the car is about 4x safer (assuming the bike averages about 12mph and the car about 50mph). But that's a daft metric as hardly anyone drives a car for fun.
[although having read your post back word for word it's ambiguous whether you're talking about the car driving or walking]
In 2019, car occupants accounted for 42% of road deaths, pedestrians 27%, motorcyclists 19% and pedal cyclists 6%
or 736 died in cars 470 pedestrians. 336 motorcyclists 100 cyclists
Says far more about their relative uses than their safety.
I agree with your argument, but you're grossly misrepresenting the stats.
But if the Pedestrian is doing 3mph and the bike ~12mph, then the cyclist is 4x safer per hour.
Although I got that one the wrong way around, bikes are faster, therefore more risky by that factor on a per hour basis.
He’s wrong on the car point though, 1.8 KSI per billion mile Vs ~30 for pedestrians and cyclists. Assuming 50mph that’s 36 KSI per million hours in a car, or 2475 KSI per million hours on a bike.
This also makes that 90 KSI per billion hours for the car.
and 360 per billion hours for the cyclists.
and 90 per billion hours for walking (same as the car, but as noted above a daft comparison).
No, but the fit human can run at 20mph. Guess what, the skull evolved to mitigate the risk of falling at this speed!
Sorry, I missed this belter. Presumably Usain Bolt didn't do sprint training on a shitty potholed road. And I also presume a sprinter would find it hard to sustain such a speed very far. So like I said, walking and cycling are two very different activities with two very different risk and fall profiles.
in 50 years of cycling I have hit my head once IIRC I had a helmet on and it was a glancing blow on a low hanging tree limb with no injury. In 40 years of drinking I have hit my head 3 times each time leading to injury
Conversely in 33 years of cycling I've hit my head multiple times, at least two of those resulting in neck injury and mild concussion. In 23 years of drinking I've never hit my head once.
I'll see if I can dig out the pictures of the General Lee and the helmet, you can decide how much energy was dissipated in the crash and then I'll reverse a Sprinter at your face to see how inconsequential it is. Prove me wrong.
Conversely in 33 years of cycling I’ve hit my head multiple times, at least two of those resulting in neck injury and mild concussion.
jeepers - maybe a skills course?
then I’ll reverse a Sprinter at your face to see how inconsequential it is. Prove me wrong.
cycle helmets don't protect your face 🙂
jeepers – maybe a skills course?
I'd like to have seen you do any better in a split second decision. I was probably doing about 30 considering the hill behind me and otherwise clear road in front.
Where in a skills course does it cover other people or mechanical failures? Is this a new STW Cycling God trend you're trying to start? Is there an Advanced Cycling Proficiency test with the Institute of Advanced Cyclists you can recommend?
Of course it couldn't just be a case that you've been lucky and I've not could it? How about all those people who seem to regularly get knocked off their bikes, are they unskilled too? They clearly must be doing something wrong as I'VE never been knocked off MY bike?
cycle helmets don’t protect your face 🙂
Semantics, forehead then.
Oh and yes they do, why else do full face helmets exist?
Conversely in 33 years of cycling I’ve hit my head multiple times, at least two of those resulting in neck injury and mild concussion.
Wow, you sound like a crap rider or just very unlucky. You definitely need to wear a helmet.
I have hit my head once in almost 50 years of cycling. That includes 10 years of BMX when young and related dicking about and doing stupid things. I have even been knocked off by cars twice.
The one time I did hit my head? I was manualling a brakeless BMX in my garage and looped out and landed flat on the floor (embarrassingly that was only 10 years ago!)
My worst head injury was when running out of my drive as a kid and hitting a girl running along the pavement head to head. Neither of us had helmets on and I ended up in A&E.
So my anecdotal evidence supports wearing a helmet when running around as a kid and if doing thing beyond my capability in my garage...