[Closed] Helmet on road?

270 posts and 76 voices.

[i]Someone[/i] is reading it 😀

No, that is exactly risk compensation. You are taking additional risks that you would be more reluctant to take without the nice safe feeling of a helmet.

No. It is not. Selecting higher levels of PPE in response to the size of the risk is completely the opposite.
I'm not saying "I'm wearing my plastic lid of invincibility therefore I can ride as fast as I like" I'm saying "I'm setting out to ride faster than usual, what steps can I take to mitigate the increased risks"

Anyone who frequented the Visordown m/c forum back in the day as much as I did had no choice but to become an expert on Risk Compensation mainly in response to threads about high viz 🙂

I've noticed an obvious correlation between people who don't like wearing helmets & those who seem to find convincing those scientific arguments which question the value of helmets. Of course I accept that this doesn't demonstrate causation 😉

Oh & I think crikey is largely correct.

I'm not saying "I'm wearing my plastic lid of invincibility therefore I can ride as fast as I like" I'm saying "I'm setting out to ride faster than usual, what steps can I take to mitigate the increased risks"

And if there were no steps available to you then would you ride "faster than usual" anyway?

270 posts and 76 voices.

Someone is [s]reading[/s] writing on it

...and I can't be bothered reading 8 pages of helmet discussion so though I'd add my own useless data point: I always wear a helmet when riding a bike, but I often don't bother when riding a unicycle.

After being cut up by a car doing about 30mph, I walked out of hospital 3 days later following surgery, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I truly believe I would have been brain damaged or dead.

[quote=ali69er ]After being cut up by a car doing about 30mph, I walked out of hospital 3 days later following surgery, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I truly believe I would have been brain damaged or dead.

but don't you see the only reason the car cut you up was because they saw you, clocked you had a lid on and aimed for you. If not it was probably your fault for going out feeling all invincible wearing your lid. You would also probably have been better off cyclin in the netherlands 😆

What surprises me is that helmet manufacturers haven't commissioned studies that support the fact that helmets make a difference. Bit strange that really?

Hey, crosshair, if you have such little respect for the opinions of others, and prefer to laugh and call people "ridiculous", why bother starting the thread? Your tone is very patronising.

Anyway, picking out the comparison with cars (which is "ridiculous"), you outline a bunch of things that you assert prevent head injuries. And yet...

[i]"Car crashes remain a significant source of head injury in the community. Car occupants have an annual hospital admission rate of around 90 per 100,000 population. Of drivers who are admitted to hospital, the most serious injury is usually to the head (O'Conner and Trembath, 1994).

In a previous study, McLean et al. (1997) estimated the benefits that are likely to accrue to Australia from the use of padding of the upper interior of the passenger compartment. This study specifically examined the effects of the ammendment to the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201 (FMVSS 201) in which passenger cars have to pass head impact tests with the upper interior. That report estimated the total annual reduction in harm to the Australian community to be around $123 million.

[b]But more impressive were the estimates of introducing protective headwear for car occupants. The authors of the report estimated that the annual reduction in harm would be in the order of $380 million.[/b][/i]
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html

Yes, things have come on since 1997, for sure, but car accidents remain the biggest single cause of major traumatic head injuries. So no, the comparison is not "ridiculous", it's valid, because it illustrates that there is a practical line that gets drawn somewhere. For some reason, people want to set that line much lower for motoring than for cycling, and that's why there is a massively entrenched PPE culture around the latter, but not the former.

Especially if they asset there is no downside to helmet wearing.

There is a big downside to the whole culture of helmets, in that collectively makes people see cycling as much more hazardous than they should. There's nothing wrong with wearing a helmet. There's a LOT wrong with being overcritical of others for choosing not to.

Anyway, it feels much nicer sometimes riding without a lid. Particularly when climbing a big mountain, for instance.

Hey, crosshair, if you have such little respect for the opinions of others, and prefer to laugh and call people "ridiculous", why bother starting the thread? Your tone is very patronising.

I never started the thread!!!! I only joined in on this page!!!
I never called people ridiculous, merely stated that some of the arguments are.

Not sure why people cite the Netherlands a s a safe place to ride, having spent 2 weeks there on holiday with a bike I can assure you it is not.

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk. You may end up disagreeing, fine, but Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling culture in one of the two most successful cycling countries in the world, so I think it's a pretty long leap to call [b]him[/b] ridiculous.

Not sure why people cite the Netherlands a s a safe place to ride, having spent 2 weeks there on holiday with a bike I can assure you it is not.

[img] [/img]
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm

I don't need to take my time, I'm still waiting patiently for you to have the common courtesy of answering my question.

I have answered it. If you're struggling to understand, find a dictionary and look up "rhetorical".

I never started the thread!!!! I only joined in on this page!!!

I misunderstood your opening line, apologies

I don't need a crash helmet I need a pair of boxing gloves as proven this morning on Ken High St. Some drivers are just complete morons and bullies and don't like being called out on it.

ormondroyd - Member

You still have problems there with motorists not seeing you, very safe when on cycle tracks which number in the 100,000s but dont expect a trouble free ride on the roads. Also dont forget that its a country where "Foreigners" drive and come with the driving habits of their country.
Found much the same riding in Menorca, lots of respect from local cars but when cut up or passed very close at speed by cars its always a rental car.

I fell off last night. My hand's bruised.

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk. You may end up disagreeing, fine, but Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling culture in one of the two most successful cycling countries in the world, so I think it's a pretty long leap to call him ridiculous.

Ok, so a charismatic guy spends 14minutes telling us that promoting helmet wearing can scare people off of cycling.
He briefly mentions a statistic that might possibly imply that people get into more accidents wearing a helmet but never really elaborates on that (despite 2 1/2 y of study, one brief sound bite is all he can come up with).

Nothing in it convinced me that I shouldn't wear a helmet (I don't think that was trying to be at the crux of his argument anyway, so dubious as to how relevant the clip is).

His comparisons to pedestrians and driving a car were not ridiculous because he wasn't in my opinion saying that if you believe you should wear a helmet for cycling then you just as well wear one for the other two. He was in fact referring to them in regards to scaremongering techniques.

We have the freedom to choose. I choose to, you may choose not to. When he's old enough to cycle, my son will wear one too.

They banned TJ for [i]this[/i] ?

Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling

He may be an expert on cycling culture but I am willing to bet that I've ridden far more miles on Britain's road network than he has. Perhaps he might like to consider where I get my perception of how safe it is.

promoting helmet wearing can scare people off of cycling.

Nothing in it convinced me that I shouldn't wear a helmet

But no one is trying to persuade you not to wear a helmet. No one is saying that wearing a helmet is a bad thing, just that those who choose not to wear one shouldn't be marginalised, criticised, or viewed any differently from those who do.

Whoever said it was about the 'uniform' is right. Sadly, like the sad sheep that I am, I've been considering wearing a helmet on the road for while now, purely because I'm conscious that I stick out like a sore thumb among the helmet wearing cycling populace.

One thing I'm now certain of though, is that compulsory helmet laws are coming. It's sad, but I suppose I'd better just get used to it. My big worry though, is that once it does, how quickly will registration and compulsory insurance follow?

Has anyone mentioned how few people actually wear their helmets [i]correctly[/i]?

(In my experience) Women in particular can often be seen wearing helmets perched on the very back of their head with loads of forehead showing, whereas men often have the chinstraps loose or even undone.

If you're going to wear one then at least wear it correctly so it can give you the protection it is supposed to.

[url= http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b95std ]SNELL says[/url]:

Position the helmet on your head so that it sits low on your forehead; if you can't see the edge of the brim at the extreme upper range of your vision, the helmet is probably out of place. Adjust the chinstraps so that, when buckled, they hold the helmet firmly in place. This positioning and adjusting should be repeated to obtain the very best result possible. The procedure initially may be time consuming. Take the time.

Try to remove the helmet without undoing the chinstrap. If the helmet comes off or shifts over your eyes, readjust and try again. If no adjustment seems to work, this helmet is not for you; try another.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

I don't think it will become compulsory at all. In London at least there are 8000 bikes for hire and I can't see people being forced to wear communal helmets or carry one about just in case.

This is an interesting point re Boris bikes from wikipedia

A study showed cyclists using the scheme are three times less likely to be injured per trip than cyclists in London as a whole, possibly due to motorists giving cycle hire users more road space than they do other cyclists.

Seem that the less able you are the more room you get, perhaps riding poorly has it's upsides, or maybe the lack of helmets makes drivers more careful.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

Why do you ask?

where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

Tricky. Motorcyclists are an excellent source of donor organs which means it is useful to the population as a whole to prevent brain death until they are ready to be harvested.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

At an idealogical level I'm against it, but I do recognise that it saves lives. The same with seatbelts in cars. Being one of those pinko liberal types, I tend to think it's no business of the government to dictate to people how much risk they should accept in their everyday lives. As long as it doesn't endanger anyone else of course.

compulsory helmet laws are coming. It's sad, but I suppose I'd better just get used to it. My big worry though, is that once it does, how quickly will registration and compulsory insurance follow?

A study showed cyclists using the scheme are three times less likely to be injured per trip than cyclists in London as a whole, possibly due to motorists giving cycle hire users more road space than they do other cyclists.

Being one of those pinko liberal types, I tend to think it's no business of the government to dictate to people how much risk they should accept in their everyday lives.

The trouble is that pinko liberal socialism means everyone pays for those that are caught out by that risk.

The trouble is that pinko liberal socialism means everyone pays for those that are caught out by that risk.

You could use that logic to ban pretty much every dangerous or 'extreme' sport. That's one for a different thread though.

You [i]could[/i]. You [i]could[/i] also use it to ban much more common causes of injury and health problems such as smoking, drinking, DIY, gardening and driving.

More reasonably you could use it as a justification for the government wanting to protect the health of citizens to a reasonable level. 🙂

You could use that logic to ban pretty much every dangerous or 'extreme' sport.

Even then, they wouldn't ban cycling though because the benefit from the exercise vastly outweighs the risks, *even without a helmet*. You cost society less than if you made the same journeys by car or bus.

I came out of my house once, hopped onto the bike. rode 10metres and realised the road was very shiny - before I knew it I was laying sideways on the road on sheet ice.

EVERY time on the road.

(This is coming from someone who forgot his helmet and rode down the beast on a hardtail recently alone)

You could. You could also use it to ban much more common causes of injury and health problems such as smoking, drinking, DIY, gardening and driving.

Well I guess 'ban' is the wrong word. What we're really talking about is denying free NHS treatment and emergency rescue services to those who can't pay for it. This ball is already rolling. The end result will be less people partaking in 'risky' sports or activities because they can't afford the insurance.

I do recognise that it saves lives. The same with seatbelts in cars.

It is debatable whether seatbelts save lives overall. The graph below for all UK fatalies (excluding motorcycles) shows no drop in UK fatalities after the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983. IN fact a previous declining trend was interrupted. While a driver who crashes is safer if belted it isn't that simple at a population level.

[img] [/img]

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/

After the seatbelt law for the driver and front seat passenger was introduced in 1983 deaths of drivers and front seat passengers went down but deaths of rear seat passengers, cyclists and pedestrians went up. Looks like risk compensation in action.

[img] [/img]

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/30/second-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/

I think it is fair to say that seatbelts save the lives of vehicle occupants while costing the lives of cyclists and pedestrians.

ransos - Member

I have answered it. If you're struggling to understand, find a dictionary and look up "rhetorical".

No you haven't.
You Haven't answered my question because to do so would expose the flaws in the BS you propagate.

And as you seem a little confused, rhetoric is determined by the author, not the audience. Best to avoid such obvious errors when trying to be clever, because they cause you to fail.
🙂

Apparently the human body (and specifically the skull IIRC) is designed to withstand impacts at up to 20mph

Hallelujah!

The end result will be less people partaking in 'risky' sports or activities because they can't afford the insurance.

Sadly you are probably right - especially with the stealth privatisation of the NHS and moves toward private healthcare US-style.

It's entirely wrong of course because 'risky' sports make up a tiny proportion of health problems in the population and must be offset against the benefits of being fitter and healthier.

But you'll still get people sat on a creaking sofa, stuffing pizza and beer down their enormous neck, smoking between mouthfuls, who will drone on about the irresponsible mountain bikers costing the NHS so much money 😀

No you haven't.
You Haven't answered my question because to do so would expose the flaws in the BS you propagate.

I have answered your question. If you don't understand it, I can't help you any further. I suppose I could've dumbed down for my audience, but I don't intend to sink to your level.

Pip pip!

ormondroyd - Member

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk.

His love of the bicycle is admirable. Shame he uses factual inaccuracies to support his opinion, although I'm sure he'd get along fine here! 😀

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

In practice riding without a helmet (which I have abroad and occasionally on lanes at home) is even less practical than a convertible car, so I don't really care.

ransos - Member

I have answered your question. If you don't understand it, I can't help you any further. I suppose I could've dumbed down for my audience, but I don't intend to sink to your level.

Pip pip!

You haven't (answered the question that is, you were already at my level).
It's plain to see that you haven't.
It's obvious why you haven't.

Now why don't you stop being so silly? 🙂