[Closed] Helmet on road?

It's great seeing you respond so eagerly to my comments. I tilt my helmet at you.

One thing I have never understood about risk compensation & cycle helmets:
How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking, while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike. Odd that. No matter which way you look at it wearing a helmet is detrimental to cycling (especially if you don't like wearing a helmet) Rather a magical property of helmets.

How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking

Plenty of MTB trials would not be ridden by me or I assume others without a helmet

while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike.

You need safety gear to do it safely so it must be dangerous. you dont need a helmet to drive a car so it must be safe.

No matter which way you look at it wearing a helmet is detrimental to cycling

Compulsion may be I am less sure that it is helmets per se as it enables me to ride many trails I would not otherwise ride.

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking, while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike. Odd that.

They're two completely different things.

One is the perception of someone who is perhaps thinking of taking up cycling and weighing up the pros an cons in a rational manner.

The other is the perception of someone already cycling, somebody already committed to it, and perhaps weighing up the risks of giving it some beans on a descent.

We are supposed to be talking road riding JY. Of course risk compensation exits & I agree it plays a massive part in off road riding. The point is that nobody has shown that it is a significant factor in road riding, likewise, nobody has ever proved that wearing a helmet on the road is anything but a response to the danger that people are easily able to perceive as they go about their daily business. It does seem amazing that helmets have a negative effect by both increasing and at the same time decreasing the sense of risk. Until either of these things are shown to be true I will still lean towards the idea that both of these problems are brought up as an argument against helmets by people whose main motivation is that they don't like wearing a helmet.

flippinheckler - Member

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

You did pick out a biased source but do you have a walking helmet? I'll add that I don't wear a helmet on the road but often do mountain biking.

Today, whilst riding the 5 miles or so to Cannock Chase I thought "the good thing about riding to the Chase rather than driving is that you know you haven't forgottten anything".

Then I noticed the wind in my ears was a bit louder than usual, which made me realise I'd forgotten my helmet.

It didn't change a thing. So I'll try not to forget it in future.

GrahamS - Member

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.

Yes but not to mention the fact that when studies done on risk compensation are done the following applies.....

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.

Goverde, Marcel (September–October 2009). "Helmets Make You Bicycle Faster". Annals of Improbable Research 15 (5): 6–9.

that been mentioned before and all it says is that when you remove some safety equipment from folk who choose to use it their behaviour changes and those who dont care dont care - that is bit of a no shit sherlock research tbh
I would like to see a longitudinal study with my hypothesis being that their speed returns to what it was with a helmet if they ride helmetless for a long enough period of time - days,weeks or months
ie helmets dont make you faster but removing PPE makes you slower [ whether the PPE is needed or not is a separate debate]

The research that Dales Rider presents, is logical ie of course a helmet offers more protection than not wearing one, but the stats are incomplete. Ok you may double your chance of head injury not wearing one, but what is the risk in the first place? 1% of all accidents? 60% ? Useless without all the stats to back it up.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work related, 10% sporting related.

So in reality you need to be more careful walking down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work related, 10% sporting related.

So in reality you need to be more careful walking down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

Hardly. The general population (made up predominantly of unfit/pregnant/disabled/fat/lazy/old people) doesn't really do any sport. Even for those who bother to do any sport, time spent doing sport << time spent getting on with the daily grind.

The point is that no one has done a decent trial to prove the benefits of helmet wearing one way or another. Because no one has quantified the risk, we are all just guessing, really. Logically, I think one has to assume that they do [i]some[/i] good in an accident - and for that reason I'll always wear one but as a libertarian I think people can do whatever the hell they like, for whatever reasons.

However - Most helmets these days are light / aero / vented / fashionable so besides cost there isn't a compelling argument against them, apart from a few statistically dubious stats about increasing risk behaviour.

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

Congratulations on entering the debate with such an even handed post. You might want to try and work out who hijacked your account earlier though.

However - Most helmets these days are light / aero / vented / fashionable so besides cost there isn't a compelling argument against them,

Or a compelling argument for them. The so light and aero argument applies to walking helmets but they are not popular. I assess my risk while commuting or touring as so low that a helmet is not needed. DfT stats agree with my assessment. Why should I wear a helmet for a low risk activity like my cycling or walking?

Helmets have been widely available and widely worn for such a long time now, you have to ask, perhaps the reason cycling is statistically safe is not in some way because of helmet use?

OK guys here's a suggestion:

Wear a helmet if you want, don't bother other people about it one way or the other.

I mean, c'mon - are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other? Are you going to stop people in the street and try and change their mind as to whether wearing one or not is a good idea?

Why don't we all have a nice cup of really hot tea [or Elderflower cordial], pass the peace pipe and just leave it here?

I assess my risk while commuting or touring as so low that a helmet is not needed.

The helmet-wearers disagree with that assessment.

The difference between cycling and being a pedestrian is that you usually are't mixing with the cars when you are walking. You have a pavement to yourself. So you are most likely to be injured crossing the road. And if you are careful you can eliminate risk when doing that.

It's not possible to eliminate risk when cycling on the road.

Superficial the only point I was making is that walking is much much higher risk than people think. Ive not seen people walking down the night street wearing pads and helmets, because that would be silly wouldn't it?

Crosshair I don't quite follow, are you suggesting it was unsafe before helmets?

This thread is stupid, as are almost all helmet threads on the internet. However I just felt the need to point out something.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big
hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car
accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work
related, 10% sporting related.
So in reality you need to be more careful walking
down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

What percentage were lion taming related accidents? 0? I'm guessing we can conclude lion taming is safer than driving a car, or walking down the road.

No FD, but every time someone compares cycling to walking in terms of safety, they're arguing as if helmet use doesn't exist. I'm saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

FunkyDunk, what you forget is that a large proportion of those people admitted are either drunk or elderly. It is one of the things people conveniently forget when they try to make out for that walking is risky compared to cycling. Have a look at how many people break bones falling out of bed. Do you think those stats are made up of fit, healthy people?

Helmets have been widely available and widely worn for such a long time now, you have to ask, perhaps the reason cycling is statistically safe is not in some way because of helmet use?

Yet much less safe than the Netherlands or Denmark, where most cyclists don't wear helmets.

I suggest reasons for safety statistics (whether good or bad) don't have much to do with helmet wearing.

Good point.

Hands up who wears a drinking helmet?

I'm saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

So you are suggesting that it was unsafe before helmets? Because that's the only possible conclusion if you attribute the safety of cycling to the helmet.

I took my helmet off for a long road climb at the weekend. TBH, didn't make me noticably cooler than before and for the climb after it I kept it on.

Why do the pro helmet people care if I wear one or not, I don't understand why it would matter to anyone other than me?

The difference between cycling and being a pedestrian is that you usually are't mixing with the cars when you are walking.

I thought we'd agreed that helmets don't generally help when you're hit by a car?

It's not possible to eliminate risk when cycling on the road.

It's not possible to eliminate risk when doing any activity - only a fool would think otherwise.

Why do the pro helmet people care if I wear one or not, I don't understand why it would matter to anyone other than me?

If it were the case that helmets really did make us much safer, then there's an argument that it matters to society - given we all pay for the NHS etc.

I'm guessing we can conclude lion taming is safer than driving a car, or walking down the road.

Follows advice, gives up cycling, starts to tame lions

I see, that's pretty thin really.

I mean, c'mon - are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other? Are you going to stop people in the street and try and change their mind as to whether wearing one or not is a good idea?

This is the problem though. I haven't seen anyone on the non-hats side trying to persuade anyone to not wear a helmet, but plenty of the opposite. IMO this debate isn't really about the efficacy of helmets or other related issues like risk-compensation etc, but about the fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists over a relatively trivial choice of what they wear when riding a bike. I'm not on the non-helmets 'side', but the 'treat everyone with respect, and support other cyclists' side.

I see, that's pretty thin really.

I agree, but only because the benefits of helmets are very debatable. You could make the same argument about car seatbelts...

dazh - Member
I haven't seen anyone on the non-hats side trying to persuade anyone to not wear a helmet, but plenty of the opposite. IMO this debate isn't really about the efficacy of helmets or other related issues like risk-compensation etc, but about the fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists over a relatively trivial choice of what they wear when riding a bike.

Well said...so I am a nutter, stupid and an idiot according to this thread!! But a classic STW thread nonetheless.

'treat everyone with respect

If only....!!

It really is no one else's business.

fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists

Its a minority and while the hats outweigh the non hats in doing this they have not been alone.
Indeed the problem may be lack of mutual respect - same as on the roads

teamhurtmore - Member
It really is no one else's business.

Unless you fall off and receive some form of head trauma, at which point it becomes a whole lot of other people's business.

I've not had any other cyclist comment about my lack of a helmet on road however my wife, friends and family all seem to believe that by not wearing one I am trying to commit suicide. Seems odd that those least qualified to comment (very occasional riders) seem to be the most vociferous. This debate reminds me of the religious threads but I'm expected to wear a helmet on faith!

I mean, c'mon - are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other?

Well one person on this thread has mailed me to say they've changed their opinion.

But mainly +1 Wot dazh said. I do [i]mostly[/i] wear a helmet these days, I'm not interested in persuading people that helmets are a [i]bad[/i] idea because I don't think they are, I just want people to think about it properly and be aware of the downsides and counter-arguments.

Because I don't really enjoy the tutting, head-shaking and patronising comments from folk (including non-cyclists!) on the days that I don't bother with a lid.

I'm saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

It's a possibility - but if that was the case wouldn't you see a significant decrease in accidents in places where helmets were made compulsory?

Good point.

Hands up who wears a drinking helmet?

Well, I always seem to end up wearing beer goggles.

Well one person on this thread has mailed me to say they've changed their opinion.

Bet they wont say who it is openly 😉

I do mostly wear a helmet these days, I'm not interested in persuading people that helmets are a bad idea because I don't think they are, I just want people to think about it properly and be aware of the downsides and counter-arguments

I think I realised that for the serious stuff i do be it fast road or proper MTB a lid make sense

To just pootle along the canal at an average of 6 mph with my kids it is not really going to make much difference for me or them*

* i am less sue i will ride sans lid with my kids but you get the point

I think there's real merit in considering the relative benefits / drawbacks of helmet wearing as objectively as you can, even if it doesn't actually change your mind you are at least better equipped with some information and points to mull over rather than accepting the prevailing group opinion without question...

I dislike the insults, name calling or resorting to hyperbolic point scoring and comparisons that threads like this often seem to descend into, it is possible to state you opinion without calling others "Idiots" it is possible to disagree with someone by simply writing [I]"I disagree"[/I] and giving your reasons...

Clearly it's a topic that animates people, that's a good thing IMO.
Earlier in this thread there was discussion on the risk compensation and driver perception issues.
Helmet wearing is obviously a part of the wider road safety issue, quite apart from the injury protection they offer, what are the other implications of wearing a helmet? how is the perception of "Risk" that cycling presents altered as Helmets are now considered almost mandatory, and how drivers attitudes and behaviour towards a cyclist change if they do/don't wear a helmet... as counter-intuitive as the arguments that helmets possibly make cycling "more risky" might appear, they do have some merit.

People also seem to have, by default, focused on the idea of accidents directly involving motor vehicles, MTBing accidents tend to occur through rider misjudgement(s) of speed, terrain or personal ability, are we saying that this is never the case for road cycling?

"Risk" if you want to assess it properly considers both likelihood AND severity of a given incident occurring, while I might agree that the likelihood of an accident occurring on a road Vs MTB ride is possibly less, I believe the potential severity is probably on average a bit higher, thus I would say Risk possibly scores similarly for the two activities...

I would actually love to see a proper risk assessment carried out for both MTBing and Road cycling, I may even try to find an appropriate format and fill one out at some point along with consideration of Hazard Control Measures (ERICPD anyone?)... What most people refer to as doing [I]"my own risk assessments"[/I] are generally a few seconds of weighing up pros/cons and then cracking on.
A proper risk assessment is a pretty useful tool as it scores risk and makes the assessor(s) consider practicable ways to reduce it...

This is the problem though. I haven't seen anyone on the non-hats side trying to persuade anyone to not wear a helmet, but plenty of the opposite. IMO this debate isn't really about the efficacy of helmets or other related issues like risk-compensation etc, but about the fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists over a relatively trivial choice of what they wear when riding a bike. I'm not on the non-helmets 'side', but the 'treat everyone with respect, and support other cyclists' side.

It depends on whether you see the Internet as life. There are huge numbers of people (on helmet threads admittedly) attempting to deride helmets and persuade people not to wear them, utilising arguments about how widespread wearing will lead to compulsion and put people off cycling. I'm fairly agnostic about the ability of a helmet to save my life in the event of a nasty accident, butI think the suggestion tat people should be better informed about helmets presupposes that there s reliable information about them. There largely isn't, which plays a little into the hands of the anti-helmet camp where the absence of evidence is often used as evidence of absence in terms of helmet efficiency. It is also the case that there is a lot of crap evidence about. For example the 'cycle helmets cause rotational injury' idea comes from a retired engineer who runs a website called something like the Cyclists Rights Action Group. Despite the fact that this is purely a theoretical problem, with no evidence at all on an epidemiological level, and despite practical tests carried out showing they don't, this particular idea is still trotted out in a regular basis despite the hugely dodgy provenance.

There are huge numbers of people (on helmet threads admittedly) attempting to deride helmets and persuade people not to wear them, utilising arguments about how widespread wearing will lead to compulsion and put people off cycling.

On this thread? Or even huge numbers? I'd suggest they're vastly outnumbered by those who call people who don't wear helmets stupid. You can give me an example to prove me wrong if you like...

while the hats outweigh the non hats in doing this they have not been alone.

An example of a non-hat preaching patronising or abusing, Junkyard?

The thing is, generally the non-hats are people who've actually thought about it more. Of course I'm including myself and people like me in the non-hat category for the sake of this argument - given that I'm very much against compulsion and not terribly in favour of widespread use by casual cyclists, despite the fact I almost always wear one when riding (a bike).

On this thread? Or even huge numbers? I'd suggest they're vastly outnumbered by those who call people who don't wear helmets stupid. You can give me an example to prove me wrong if you like...

This still, believe it or not, is a mountain bike forum, which means people tend to ride with helmets off road, carrying that over to road riding. If you go to a road riding forum you'll se a lot of anti-helmet stuff, with places like the CTC forum having a marked anti-helmet majority. I'm not sure you can say that non-helmet wearers have thought about it more. Perhaps people who argue on helmet threads have thought about it, but given the standard of evidence, I'm not sure that Evans much. I would have thought that the casual BSO non-helmet rider probably hasn't thought about it at all.

rogerthecat - Member

teamhurtmore - Member
It really is no one else's business.

Unless you fall off and receive some form of head trauma, at which point it becomes a whole lot of other people's business.

No, it's still none of their business

If you go to a road riding forum you'll se a lot of anti-helmet stuff, with places like the CTC forum having a marked anti-helmet majority.

Deriding helmet wearers?

I may not have phrased my comment about non-hats having thought about it more very well (I'm not sure I've phrased that very well either, but CBA to fix it). I thought it would get the context from the quote above that I was referring to those commenting on this thread.