Forum menu
Anyone that chooses not to wear a helmet is stupid.
Anyone that chooses not to wear a helmet is stupid.
Anyone who makes blanket statements without considering the issue properly is likewise afflicted.
Or are just trying to re-ignite a thread that has run its course.
There's no issues, Helmets protect your head more than not wearing one so therefore your stupid not too. It isn't rocket science.
Shuttup fool just because you dont care about your wife and kids and who you leave behind ...yadda yadda hyperbole, poor example, it saved my life etc
I am praying for a religious thread - we have had Gypsies
Graham - really leave it they can either read the thread or spout ignorance but I salute your indefatigability if you try 😉
Here I started them off for you
Helmets protect your head more than not wearing one
Is this a rule for everything you do or just the activity of cycling?
Oh dear so I'm ignorant for not reading the whole thread and because I think people who don't take precautions to protect themselves are stupid. You can't cover every scenario that could happen to you whilst riding a bicycle but wearing helmets defiantly reduce the risk of hurting your head if you come off and hit your head. But argue to the contrary I will just ignore you.
Oh dear so I'm ignorant for not reading the whole thread
Yup. If you want to consider some of the arguments with an open-mind then go back and read the thread.
Funnily enough one of the main topics was the patronising hypocritical insults that the Hats feel obliged to dole out to the Non-Hats. 😕
As a hat he is not wrong on that point - there was abit from the noin hats as well but it seemed to be largely humour, stupidity or frustration;[ a minority of] the hats seemed to mean it
Oh dear so I'm ignorant for not reading the whole thread ...... But argue to the contrary I will just ignore you.
Exactly why have you joined in then?
You dont want to rea dyou dont want to listen
Politely many /most of the issues have been covered and by far more erudite contributors
Oh dear hot under the collar aren't we, just hope you don't hit your heads and leave it at that 🙄
but wearing helmets defiantly reduce the risk of hurting your head if you come off and hit your head.
How exactly would I wear a helmet defiantly? No straps? A jaunty angle? Or with a rebellious expression on my face?
Oh dear hot under the collar aren't we,
No, not even some more straw men and ad homs will provoke a reaction.
I fail to understand why anyone would enter a debate, refuse to read the topic, refuse to listen, then accuse others of being "emotional or angry" 😕
Its a strange place on here sometimes
Here's a sweeping generalisation:
Those who insist on wearing a helmet on every ride are fairly new to riding a bike. They maybe rode as a child (without a lid no doubt) and have discovered mtb (or road) now they have matured and are all grown up. It's part of the biker uniform and being of a certain age, are sensible enough not to ride without a helmet. The fact that they are only really getting to grips with how to ride a bike suggests that it's a prudent decision. Sadly, some of these fine folk think that everyone should [i]safety up[/i] as they do, hence the insults directed at those who wear a lid only when they think they might need one. Obviously there'll be the odd exception to this.
back in from page 8, anything new? Anyone care to summarise? [img] 
[/img]
Anyone care to summarise?
Some general agreement, or at least acceptance of alternative positions, followed by a light-hearted interlude, then more recently new folk showing up on the thread to repeat the pro-hat lines from the first two pages. 😕
be fair a non hat also turned up to call hats scared noobs who like the "uniform" so the insults /caricatures have been in both directiosn
It [i]is [/i]part of the uniform though Junkyard. Gloves and lid are the basics a shop will sell a new rider. Most of us would recommend the same, so it's not just a shop thing. And where you getting the 'scared noob' thing from? Someone new to an activity simply won't the experience of someone who has been doing it a while longer. I don't think that's an insult.
So your assuming I might read something earlier on in the thread that may change my understanding/reasoning behind not wearing a helmet. Also why is it that seasoned bike riders think they are superior and so highly skilled that their bike handling prowess will save their skull. More stupid insults coming my way I expect.
So your assuming I might read something earlier on in the thread that may change my understanding/reasoning behind not wearing a helmet.
Given that the current limit of your understanding/reasoning appears to be [i]"your stupid not too"[/i] then yes.
You don't have to agree of course, but you should at least consider that other people's viewpoints may be based on something more than stupidity.
Do you wear a high viz vest and helmet cover? Got mirrors fitted to your bike? Wear a neck brace and spine protector?
Your [sic] stupid not too 😀
More stupid [s]insults[/s] comments coming [s]my way[/s] from flippinheckler I expect.
I thought it was a troll, but it seems he really can't be bothered to read the thread to see how his "arguments" have already been addressed.
It is part of the uniform though Junkyard.
I am not aware of a uniform for cyclist and i see them in all sorts of gear
And where you getting the 'scared noob' thing from?
the bit where you said it mainly
Someone new to an activity simply won't the experience of someone who has been doing it a while longer. I don't think that's an insult.
Indeed that is not but suggesting that this is the only argument for and the only reason for suggesting helmet use is a straw man and an ad hom
Another interesting internet meme where folk insult folk then act like they are the ones getting the insultsMore stupid insults coming my way I expect.
All I've said was its stupid not to wear a helmet for obvious reasons. No matter how science based the argument for and against are I would rather wear a helmet than take risk. I don't need to read a load of waffle to reach that conclusion.
I am not aware of a uniform for cyclist
Seriously? You've never seen bike specific clothing? Helmets, gloves, pads, shirts, shorts and shoes designed specifically for cycling in. The tour was on last week and all the participants wore the [i]road [/i]uniform. Not only do i find that hard to believe, but i'd bet some monies that you yourself have a uniform or two.
Still don't see where i said 'scared noob' but this little exchange has showed me how you may have come to that conclusion. You just make stuff up 'cause you're bored 😀
can you lot agree on the [naughty words] summary!
You've never seen bike specific clothing?
yes I have but iirc no one has to wear it and it is perfectly ok for me to ride without dressing like I am professional sponsored rider competing in the TdF - I think i would look more of a tit if i did dress in team Sky kit but each to their own. their is no unifrom though certain clothing is more suited to cycling than other types
Still don't see where i said 'scared noob' but this little exchange has showed me how you may have come to that conclusion. You just make stuff up 'cause you're bored
yes I do like to jump to conclusions about the motives and reasons for why others choose to wear helmets and suggest others do ...good point well made 🙄
The fact that they are only really getting to grips with how to ride a bike suggests that it's a prudent decision. Sadly, some of these fine folk think that everyone should safety up as they do
I guess you could [ and will] deny that is a scared noob that I fantasised from boredom
Anyway i did about 7 pages of juvenile insults earlier so you can read the arguments for and against if you wish and there are some good points on both sides of the debate as well as [s]lots[/s] too much of this type of "debate"
All I've said was its stupid not to wear a helmet for obvious reasons.
Ah the irony of being accused of ignorance by someone who can't be bothered to read the arguments. 😀
Why do I have to read the arguments?
To stop you being ignorant of the debate you have just entered 💡
I'm not ignorant just understand the merits of wearing a helmet rather than not, just because people have been lucky enough get away without being injured from not wearing a helmet doesn't mean they will be impervious to getting that knock on the head that could prematurely end their cycling days.
So if you're not ignorant then what are some of the arguments put forward against wearing a helmet?
Do you really think the best way to convince someone is to insult them and to refuse listen to anything they say?
Other people have managed fairly considered arguments on both sides - maybe you should read them?
maybe you should read them?
No thanks, I understand what a helmet is for thats why I wear one!
Yes clearly you do understand everything about this debate who could think that - is it anyone who has read the thread -
This simplistic argument has been debated near the start of the thread but dont let the facts get in the way
It is not as clear cut as a helmet will save my life and there is also the issue of risk compensation.
They have been extensively debated in the thread
Having had a number of offs on my MTB some of which involving a knock to my head that resulted in the helmet taking the brunt of the impact, same can be said from wearing eyewear as a blow to the face from an off has resulted in eyewear reducing any damage. Why take a risk when an injury could be less or prevented through wearing a helmet.
This is why I wear a helmet on or off the road. I don't need to trawl through the thread for opinions, science and facts for and against.
No thanks, I understand what a helmet is for thats why I wear one!
You don't seem to understand there is a spectrum of risk from downhill MTBing at one end to riding along a traffic free path for a mile to the shops at the other end. Are you seriously suggesting you are risking your life if you don't wear a helmet every time you get on a bike?
I'd guess almost everyone would wear a helmet for downhill mountain biking while many would consider them overkill for a short ride to the shops depending on road conditions.
If you think a helmet is needed for those shopping rides then maybe you should keep it on going round Tesco. What if you slipped on the floor and banged your head?
I'd suggest that as almost nobody is killed in cyclist only falls [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece ](look for yourself)[/url] that the human skull is perfectly adequate for protecting the brain at typical utility cycling speeds of 10-20mph. If it wasn't there would be scores or hundreds of cyclists dying in cyclist only falls every year. It almost always needs a motor vehicle to kill a cyclist. No helmet manufacturer claims any protection in motor vehicle accidents.
In any case unlike technical off road or road racing where falls can be expected now and then it is possible to ride for tens of thousands of miles without an injury accident when touring and commuting. I don't thinks that sort of risk needs head gear.
The DfT stats show one cyclist fatality for every 28 million miles cycled. Cycling is not dangerous. Avoid some of the big killers like left turning lorries and your risk will be even lower. Those DfT stats also show walking risks are in the same ballpark as cycling risks. Walking helmet?
Are you seriously suggesting you are risking your life if you don't wear a helmet every time you get on a bike?
Errr no where did I say that? I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to. I don't have to justify that to anyone. Nor have I gone into the facts about fatalities and injuries due to vehicles.
Argue the toss all you like and carry on making assumptions about my reasoning for wearing a helmet as opposed to not. Its more sensible to wear a helmet for the just in case what if scenarios than not.
I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to
And yet you ride a bike?
I think you probably set the tone for debate when you waded in with this considered and eloquent starter:
flippinheckler - Member
Anyone that chooses not to wear a helmet is stupid.POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
It's not unreasonable that others might expect you to expand on why they are "stupid" really 😕
I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to. I don't have to justify that to anyone.
Yes you can call anyone you like stupid and you dont have to justify it.
You can refuse to explain why,
You can refuse to read any science or debate/thread on the very issue you are discussing
You could also accuse them of insulting you as well whilst you keep calling them idiots
People may draw some conclusions from this if you do though... I know I have 😀
So
02.05.2003
MANDATORY WEAR OF HELMETS FOR THE ELITE CATEGORY :
The International Cycling Union (UCI) announces that as from 5 May 2003 it will be mandatory to wear a hard shell helmet in Elite Men's events for classes 4 and above.
This decision was taken in agreement with all parties represented in the Professional Cycling Council : Sports Group Associations (AIGCP), Races Organisers Associations (AIOCC) and the Professional Riders Associations (CPA), who supports this initiative although some divergences have been expressed by some of its members.
Underlining however that this decision has received full support from its principal leaders in the field, the UCI is conscious that a small number of riders invoke the "individual freedom" to oppose the obligation to wear a helmet. Whilst respecting their opinion, the UCI invites them to reflect on the consequences this attitude can generate.
Death or disability of a rider in fact represents a great sourceor sorrow for close ones and also a great loss for cycling. The fact that the rider takes the risk in all "freedom" will never take away the discomfort linked to such tragedies.
Demands from a small group of individuals should not prevail on the general interest of the sport and its followers: it is with this conviction that the UCI presents today the amendments to the regulations concerning the obligation to wear a helmet, confident that all riders will carefully observe it.
and
Reduction In Fatalities
In 2008, as part of a report for the UK Department Of Transport, "A specialist biomechanical assessment of over 100 police forensic cyclist fatality reports predicted that between 10 and 16% could have been prevented if they had worn an appropriate cycle helmet."
Also
Meta-analyses
There are several meta-analyses and reviews which synthesize and evaluate the results of multiple case-control studies. A Cochrane review of case-control studies of bicycle helmets by Thompson et al. found that "helmets provide a 63 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%.".[34]
A 2001 meta-analysis of sixteen studies by Attewell et al. found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.4 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.5 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 3.7 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[35][36]
A 2012 re-analysis of the 16 studies in the Attewell meta-analysis, by Elvik, found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.5 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.3 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 4.3 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[37][a] When 5 new head-injury studies were added to the model, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.9 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain a head injury. When head, face and neck injuries were combined, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.4 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain an injury to the head, face or neck. The odds ratio for brain injuries reported by Elvik (95% CI 0.33-0.50) is consistent with the odds ratios using hospital controls reported in the Cochrane review (0.05-0.57 for brain injury and 0.14-0.48 for severe brain injury). In noting that the results of the meta-analysis were inconsistent with the results of the Cochrane review, Elvik may have been referring just to the head injury results (95% CI 0.26-0.37 in the Cochrane review; in Elvik's meta-analysis, 0.38-0.48 using the studies in the Attewell analysis, 0.49-0.59 when 8 new studies were included).
TRL Report PPR 446
FINDINGS
The Potential for Cycle Helmets to
Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence
Abstract
There has been much debate in the literature and elsewhere regarding cycle helmets and their
potential to prevent injury. This cycle helmet safety research report was commissioned to
provide a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of cycle helmets in the event of an on-
road accident, building on previous work undertaken for the Department for Transport (Towner
et al
., 2002). The programme of work evaluates the effectiveness of cycle helmets from several
perspectives, including a review of current test Standards; a biomechanical investigation
of their potential limitations; a review of recent literature; and finally an assessment of the
casualties that could be prevented if cycle helmets were more widely used.
Main findings
Assuming that cycle helmets are a good fit and worn correctly, they should be effective at reducing the
risk of head injury, in particular cranium fracture, scalp injury and intracranial (brain) injury.
•
Cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of accident conditions, particularly:
•
the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle, often simple
falls or tumbles over the handlebars; and also
•
when the mechanism of injury involves another vehicle glancing the cyclist or tipping them over
causing their head to strike the ground.
•
A specialist biomechanical assessment of over 100 police forensic cyclist fatality reports predicted
that between 10 and 16% could have been prevented if they had worn an appropriate cycle helmet.
•
Of the on-road serious cyclist casualties admitted to hospital in England (HES database):
•
10% suffered injuries of a type and to a part of the head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated
or prevented; and a further
•
20% suffered ‘open wounds to the head’, some of which are likely to have been to a part of the
head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated or prevented.
Oh.
Yes, haven't read back but that must be the first bit of hard evidence for or against helmet wearing.
Actually I mentioned the Cochrane Review quite a way back along with the Hillman/Adams objections to it, which are basically that it fails to consider the risk compensation aspects.
Interesting stats in that post by dales_rider,but it doesn't change my position. As I said about 12 pages ago, I deem the risk to be so minuscule that multiplying it it by a factor of 2 or 3 is immaterial.
Also some of those stats and quotes support exactly what other people have been saying: that helmets are most effective in "cyclist falling off bike" rather than traffic accidents, and even then only 10% of the accidents involved head injuries that [i]may[/i] have been prevented by a helmet.
A bit over sensitive to being labelled stupid for not wearing helmets even though some respondents also confess to wearing helmets. I also draw my own conclusion.
Over sensitive to being labelled stupid 😆 The diplomacy cores loss is our gain
You complained about being insulted when no one was insulting you and now you want to talk about over sensitive
Loving your work
flippinheckler: if you actually have something to add to the debate then please do.
If you only came here to call people stupid then you've done that. Well done. Mission accomplished, now kindly jog on.