Forum menu
Who'd have thought, no TJ and still 16 pages. He'd be so proud.
Who'd have thought, no TJ and still 16 pages. He'd be so proud
He emailed me - he is 😀
An example of a non-hat preaching patronising or abusing, Junkyard?The thing is,[b] generally the non-hats are people who've actually thought about it more[/b].
Not abuse, not preaching - you reckon it's patronising? Given the use of the word "generally" at the start, and given some of the contributions of the hats, I thought it was fairly factual.
sure lots of the hats think the non hats have not actually though about it either
To be fair its not that bad and I get your general point but it was to easy an internet "win " to resist 😉
There is no doubt the hats have been the largest, loudest and the rudest and by a clear margin though and some have indeed regaled in their refusal to think or read on the subject as it is so simple
Unless you fall off and receive some form of head trauma, at which point it becomes a whole lot of other people's business.
If I fell off, mashed my brains and my wife had to spend the next 50 years feeding me through a tube as I dribble at her, that's other people's business - hers, as well as mine. Hypotehtically, if I were to be too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this, then other people who also care about me could easily be justified in entreating me to do so. For my sake and my wife's.
There is no doubt the hats have been the largest, loudest and the rudest and by a clear margin though
And along comes molgrips to prove the point: [i]"too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this"[/i] 🙄
kilo - Member
No, it's still none of their business
Yes it is.
And along comes molgrips to prove the point: "too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this"
What does that prove? I didn't say all non-hats were pig headed, but undoubtedly some are.
Hypotehtically, if I were to be too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this,
Such as cycling more slowly?
Yes.
Incidentally I hold back my speed sometimes for that very reason - as well as wearing a helmet.
I've not had chance to ride off road lately.. any riding I've done has been restricted to lugging the kids about.. to and from school, to the park, beach and bimbles along the prom etc and as a result I haven't worn my hat so much (maybe the heat played a part in this too)..
then this morning I realised that by not wearing some sort of head protection I was being a bit **** ish to my family, so I've put it back into service today..
Hope that clears the whole helmet debate up for everyone.. 8)
Incidentally I hold back my speed sometimes for that very reason - as well as wearing a helmet.
So there are times you don't hold back your speed? Why not?
What does that prove? I didn't say all non-hats were pig headed, but undoubtedly some are.
It's nicely indicative of the abuse the Non-Hats receive when they choose not to wear a helmet. See also:
[i]"by not wearing some sort of head protection I was being a bit **** ish"[/i]
🙄
you roll your eyes young man, whilst you've still got voluntary control of 'em.. 😆
I really think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet while cycling on any public road. Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.
Would you drive a car with no seat belt on the assumption that you wont be in an accident? No. So why ride a bike without a helmet on the assumption that you wont be in an accident?
So there are times you don't hold back your speed? Why not?
Hmm.. dunno, I am usually holding back to some extent on downhills or flats. Sometimes I hold back more than others though - if I am on my own, somewhere there's no-one nearby to help me, that kind of thing. Likely consequences of a crash also make me slow down - lots of trees close to the trail or a big drop etc.
I generally go my fastest at trail centres where the trails are somewhat safer and max speed is not all that high.
The point is that sometimes I hold back more than others.
Would you drive a car with no seat belt on the assumption that you wont be in an accident?
Of course they would - they'd just drive slower until they felt safe.
I really think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet while cycling on any public road. Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.
Quite right, because if we all wore helmets, we'd be more like Australia and less like Netherlands...
I really think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet while cycling on any public road.
Even though the evidence is that compulsion would result in less people cycling, and hence cause far greater harm to the overall public health than the odd banged head?
I don't think you'll find many supporters of compulsion here, even amongst the strongly pro-hat posters.
Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.
Why's that then?
Hmm.. dunno, I am usually holding back to some extent on downhills or flats. Sometimes I hold back more than others though - if I am on my own, somewhere there's no-one nearby to help me, that kind of thing.
So you're making a risk assessment based on circumstances.
I do the same when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet.
It's nicely indicative of the abuse the Non-Hats receive when they choose not to wear a helmet.
It's not really about Non-Hats and Hats though is it..?
It's about thickie pig-headed reactionary ne'er do wells and helmet wearers isn't it..?
If I fell off, mashed my brains and my wife had to spend the next 50 years feeding me through a tube as I dribble at her, that's other people's business - hers, as well as mine. Hypotehtically, if I were to be too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this, then other people who also care about me could easily be justified in entreating me to do so.
Ah the mysterious brain mashing dribble inducing catastrophic injury that can only be averted by a piece of material not tested past an impact speed of 12mph - read lots and lots of reports of these and how even though they don't exist they allow people to take a sanctimonious high ground. Perhaps if you and your family are that worried, the safe carefree and once again safe activity of cycling isn't for you.
I couldn't care less if others choose to wear a helmet or not on or off-road. I've hit my head on tarmac though without a helmet and it hurts, a lot, I wasn't planning to crash either. These days I choose to wear a helmet as it protects my noggin from road rash and some impacts and there's very little downside other than helmet hair and having to clean the pads once in a while. I don't wear one thinking it will save me if I go under the wheels of an HGV or over the bonnet of a driver doing 60mph whilst temporarily blinded by the sun.
Seriously though, until you've tried it, I wouldn't underestimate the ouch factor of your head scraping along tarmac.
they allow people to take a sanctimonious high ground
But don't go up there without a helmet - it's really high and that ground is pretty shaky! 😀
Would you drive a car with no seat belt on the assumption that you wont be in an accident? No.
Err, yes, actually. The only think that makes me wear a seatbelt routinely is the annoying bloody alarm that goes off if I don't put it on (must figure out how to disable that at some point).
Anyway, this line of debate has been dealt with I think. I know these threads like to go round in circles but another cycle of 'why don't you wear a helmet when driving/walking/sleeping/cooking/etc' really isn't necessary 🙂
Friend of mine had a cycle accident recently and she smacked the back of her head on the road. Helmet was cracked, but she managed not to be concussed or have a cracked skull.
They can't save you from everything, but I think they can minimise injuries on occasion, and I'd rather do that if I can.
Why's that then?
Because all your doing is making assumptions on a drivers behaviour based on a cyclist wearing a helmet.
A dangerous driver is dangerous regardless of what you wear on your head.
FuzzyWuzzy - Member
I couldn't care less if others choose to wear a helmet or not on or off-road. I've hit my head on tarmac though without a helmet and it hurts, a lot, I wasn't planning to crash either. These days I choose to wear a helmet as it protects my noggin from road rash and some impacts and there's very little downside other than helmet hair and having to clean the pads once in a while. I don't wear one thinking it will save me if I go under the wheels of an HGV or over the bonnet of a driver doing 60mph whilst temporarily blinded by the sun.
Seriously though, until you've tried it, I wouldn't underestimate the ouch factor of your head scraping along tarmac.
+1
Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.
Ignoring some of the effects of helmet wearing and concentrating only on the one which supports your argument is silly.
Because all your doing is making assumptions on a drivers behaviour based on a cyclist wearing a helmet.
Assumptions based on academic studies of the behavior of drivers. Clearly you know better though.
Obviously. I wear a helmet.
read lots and lots of reports of these and how even though they don't exist
It does happen. James Cracknell, and a bloke I used to work with. My ex-colleague ironically was walking at the time not cycling, but it was still a case of head vs car.
(I know what you'll all say, but as previously mentioned the reason I don't wear one when walking is that I deem being hit by a car to be less likely than when I cycle in traffic)
Seriously though, until you've tried it, I wouldn't underestimate the ouch factor of your head scraping along tarmac.
Been there, done that. Couldn't remember how I made it home from where I crashed (which was less than a mile), got taken to hospital to get checked for concussion and ended up with a big lump over one eye which made it hard to open. No lasting damage though. Hence why I tend to wear a helmet when riding in similar circumstances (in the dark and wet). Hence why I'm also somewhat sceptical about all the anecdotes about helmets having saved people's lives (or having saved them from a lifetime of dribbling and being fed through a tube), when the majority of the incidents appear to involve less impact than my crash did. Maybe I have a very thick skull, but I suspect that in reality whilst a lump of polystyrene does save people from what I experienced fairly often, it saves people from death a lot less often than they think.
It does happen. James Cracknell, and a bloke I used to work with
Last time I checked Cracknell wasn't dribbling. If your ex-colleague who wasn't cycling is, then your post is somewhat ironic.
A hefty dose of (anecdotal) front-line realism [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/how-to-ride-safely-by-cyclist-doctors-who-save-lives-8727773.html ]from 3 cycling medics involved in the London Air Ambulance[/url]:
"There seem to always be calls for compulsory helmet use after a cycling death. Whilst helmets are important our experience in pre hospital care suggests many of the cycling deaths occur when a vehicle has driven over the chest or pelvis causing terrible injuries."
Grim 😐
Although I am loathe to add any more to a thread which promised so little and delivered even less, apart from GrahamS being the voice of reason, I had a helmet tale to tell.
3 riders, all on the same size bikes, all the same height, took a corner in single file on black ice.
We were riding to a coach pick up to race the Inter regional champs and had to get to the coach at 4 am, all on cross bikes.
We all came off at the same point, doing the same speed. One of us got concussion; he was wearing a helmet. The other two had no head injury at all.
I was the one wearing the helmet, and the impact split it.
Helmets make your head bigger and easy to bump in some falls, and the helmet crack didn't save me from anything.
We got beaten at the champs too.
"There seem to always be calls for compulsory helmet use after a cycling death. Whilst helmets are important our experience in pre hospital care suggests many of the cycling deaths occur when a vehicle has driven over the chest or pelvis causing terrible injuries."
70% of cycling deaths are due to head injuries
70% of cycling deaths are due to head injuries
Evidence please?
70% of cycling deaths are due to head injuries
Source??
Even [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-road/page/14#post-5194905 ]the heavily pro-helmet figures that Dale_rider posted the other day[/url] said that
"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"
70% of cycling deaths are due to head injuries
That's the reported cause of death - how many would have died of other injuries had their head been totally protected (with a motorbike style helmet)?
Klunk - Member70% of cycling deaths are due to head injuries
Do you have a reference for that, ROSPA just says
"A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads." at no stage do they seem to mention that the head injuries are the cause of death nor do they state what proportion were wearing helmets
The-Potential-for-Cycle-Helmets-to-Prevent-Injury-Review-.-D.Hynd-UK-2009-1.pdf
appendix.H Table 7-20
That's [url= http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm ]the same TRL review[/url] that Dales_rider and I quoted from?
You might want to consider the critique of it here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1230.html
Do you have a proper link for that so we can check the context?
You might want to consider the critique of it here:
that critique mentions nothing on the 71% of deaths are due to head injuries ?
From Klunk's link:
“[it was] impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed”
Yet that's exactly what they did. Sounds like quality research.