[Closed] Helmet on road?

OK Pingu what bit of "Me personally I respect your right not to wear one however please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury." suggests you'd stop.

As far as I understand English "keep moving along" doesn't mean "stop and check".

Cycling on the road can be pretty scary

But the presence or not of a polystyrene hat doesn't affect that scariness!

...which is pretty much the whole point that everyone is missing.

Graham, you don't think that perhaps people's experiences as they go about their daily business counts for more than helmet wearing when it comes to perception of safety?

Yep - but sadly a good many people won't even get to that stage because they (or their parents) will decide that cycling is [i]obviously[/i] "far too dangerous", even if they just wanted to ride on a traffic-free path to work/school.

Witness the various schools that outright ban pupils from cycling on "health and safety" grounds for example.

Ian Walkers study was pretty conclusive no? 2,500 vehicles sampled. That sounds like a decent sample size to me. His data is publicly available for you to verify. Certainly matches my own experiences.

Ian Walker himself expresses some reservations about his methodology, but if you are going to accept that his findings actually illustrates a significant safety risk then I take it you will always be riding in secondary while wearing a long blonde wig?

Cycling on the road can be pretty scary
But the presence or not of a polystyrene hat doesn't affect that scariness!

...which is pretty much the whole point that everyone is missing.

Yup but not including me. You obviously missed the part earlier in the thread where I said "I think crikey is largely correct" 😆

Ned not sure if you are quoting what you think I wrote but thats not what I said.

Ned I see you are still trying to put your own twist on things and again both misinterpreting and misquoting what I have put.

And "I will respect your right not to wear a helmet, but I will respect you so much, I won't ride with you, and you should respect that."

???

Ian Walkers study was pretty conclusive no?

IIRC the measure was subjective - ie he did not actually measure how far away they were he estimated
The differences were non significant as well.

I dont think it was randomised or controlled for time of day or other risk factors

It was done essentially as a laugh and for some insight and now it is treated like it the definitive tomb on this issue

Nice rebuttal here - note their measuring tool

a dual parallax spectrographic imaginometer.

OUTTHERELIVING.COM "http://outthereliving.com/Ian_Walker_move_over_pls.pdf"

Actual scientific rebuttal

Seriously Graham S read it is poor- cant find a copy online from a few minutes searching
.

polystyrene hat

I like that. I'm going to use that from now on instead of the word 'helmet'.

What you wrote doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to reword it to see if I've got the right end of the stick or not. I still don't know what you mean.

Can you help?

Witness the various schools that outright ban pupils from cycling on "health and safety" grounds for example.

"I think crikey is largely correct"

You bloody fool! Not even [b]I[/b] think I'm largely correct... 😆

Ian Walker himself expresses some reservations about his methodology,

I've not read his reservations (link?), but it's not a perfect study by any means. It got published in the Accident Analysis and Prevention journal though, so meets some basic tests for rigour.

Edit: never mind Junky has posted some rebuttals.

I take it you will always be riding in secondary while wearing a long blonde wig?

And a nice floral dress.

No, obviously, but I'm not averse to doing a little noob-wobble to get myself a bit more room.

I think the point about that is that it indicates that helmet wearing (if you see it as a problem) is more of a symptom than a cause.

I do think it adds to the perception that utility cycling is risky. Which it isn't.

ransos - Member

Are you unable to? It would explain a great deal.

I am unable to, because you never answered my question. 🙂

Carry on playing your schoolyard game of "I know something you don't" if you like, but I fear you may have misunderstood the basic premise of the taunt... 😉

he did not actually measure how far away they were he estimated...

Hmm.. his website says they "modified a bicycle subtly to carry a video system and [b]accurate ultrasonic distance sensor[/b] which could record passing proximities."

pingu aside, I don't really have anything to add, but here's my 2p anyway:

I really like riding a bike. I like the freedom of getting on and going, I like not wearing a rucksack and feeling the wind rippling my t-shirt. I like riding in flip flops with the sun on my face and the wind in (the remainder of) my hair.

The more clutter that surrounds the bike riding experience, the less good it feels.

Sometimes wearing shoes is a good idea, and I'll wear them. Sometimes wearing a helmet is a good idea. Sometimes I'll take a backpack. very ocasionally I'll wear pads. But only when I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I don't think traffic, or on easy trails off road, necessarily means helmet wearing has a benefit for that ride which outweighs the negative.

That's just how I feel. We're all different, I don't like the idea of downhilling as a pastime, I think the potential for serious/inconvenient injury is too high. Some people don't like the idea of cycling in traffic. or cycing full stop.

Some of the extreme emphasis on judgment of other people's risk appetite based entirely on their helmet choice seems incredibly blinkered and narrow-minded.

I said IIRC - I tried to check but could not get the report on the web

Happy to be corrected on that claim
the rest?

Have you got the actual report - linky

ta

I am unable to, because you never answered my question.

Carry on playing your schoolyard game of "I know something you don't" if you like, but I fear you may have misunderstood the basic premise of the taunt...

Yes I have. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

I'll leave you to get back to your trouser rubbing.

OK ned carry on trying to rewrite it to make sense to you. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

To clarify me as an individual. I wouldn't walk past a sick or injured animal. However if you banged your head and I stopped to see if you were ok, ie I was aware you were injured, and you had a bump and were not wearing a helmet I may choose to think that you were a little silly for not having a helmet on. Now if you think that I was suggesting I would ride past if you were lying in a ditch then think again.

But please do carry on with misquoting, I hope there is something in this post you are able to misquote.

not answering and then ad homing ad naseum whilst ignoring an actual debate going on around is pointless

Can you just leave it as it beyond childish now or just e-mail each other with yes I did no I didnt type comments

Feel free to let us all know whose dad was indeed the hardest
Thanks
Pingu it is aimed less at you but just refrain is my advice/plead

I hope there is something in this post you are able to misquote.

No need!

A rider in our club had a fork failure [Steerer snapped]

Most of my road miles are done on my Surly Long Haul Trucker which has a hefty 1 1/8" steel steerer. I've removed the fork for flying twice and taken the chance to examine the fork for any hairline cracks. I'm satisfied that the risk of steerer failure is close enough to zero that I'll take it without a helmet. Were I riding a bike with an aluminium or carbon steerer I might make a different choice.

ransos - Member

Yes I have. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

I'll leave you to get back to your trouser rubbing.

You could easily put this to bed by simply repeating your answer, if you had one. 💡

Considering that we're probably in general agreement about much of this discussion, it's a shame you spend so much energy with playground sillyness to avoid conceding a point on the internet.

As for me I'm juvenile with too much time on my hands, although I'm still not wearing any trousers. 😀

That does clarify, thanks. You stop, see someone's injured, got a bump on the head say, they're not wearing a helmet. You "might choose to think they're a little silly"

Absolutely fair enough. No problem with that at all.

It leaves the reader with a hugely reduced, nay eradicated sense of you being a selfish arse that you managed to put acorss in your original post.

And you had a problem with us misquoting...

To clarify me as an individual. I wouldn't walk past a sick or injured animal. However if you banged your head and I stopped to see if you were ok, ie I was aware you were injured, and you had a bump and were not wearing a helmet I may choose to think that you were a little silly for not having a helmet on. Now if you think that I was suggesting I would ride past if you were lying in a ditch then think again.

I do love a bit of internet forum revisionism 🙂

Anyway, not sure why the need to rush to judgement about how or why someone obtained an injury, rather than just thinking 'oh sh*t, that guy needs some help'. That kind of thinking is the sort which will have us all being forced to take out compulsory (and expensive) accident insurance.

Have you got the actual report - linky

Sadly not - you have to pay for it. I did watch a presentation about it and skim through it at some cycling event though.

The summary is available for free here:

Critical point is his results were non significant

Statistically or practically? Statistically speaking they were significant. Practically, well yeah, they only came about 8cm closer on average when wearing a helmet - but it's not really the average overtakes that worry me.

BTW, his rebuttal to the Cyclists View rebuttal is here:
http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html

Considering that we're probably in general agreement about much of this discussion, it's a shame you spend so much energy with playground sillyness to avoid conceding a point on the internet.

I asked you to think about something, which you've decided you don't want to do, for reasons best known to yourself.

I will end our dialogue, as it's clear that you're only interested in arguing for its own sake. I suppose it fills the time.

Enjoy your trouser rubbing.

KCR - Are you new here? 😉

kcr - Member
Every thread just repeats the same comments that were posted the last time.

But I kind of agree 😉 . How do these threads go on so long - they are a guaranteed 10+ pagers?

IMO, whether someone else wears a helmet or not is none of my business and vice versa. Ditto climbing a rock face solo, OW swimming on my own, wilderness canoeing and camping. The choice on individual risk limits is personal to the extent that it does not endanger others, surely?

I spent most of life riding without helmets until triathlon rules forced me to do otherwise. 9/10 I now ride with a helmet but occasionally I do not. What business is it of anyone else's? The odd MTB ride sans-casque is lovely even though I have had enough bangs on the head to realise the potential consequences (more from trees than the deck itself!).

You bloody fool! Not even I think I'm largely correct.

I certainly don't! *

The choice on individual risk limits is personal to the extent that it does not endanger others, surely?

Not entirely. We do have loved ones and those who love us. Apart from crikey* So we have a responsibility towards them not to die or sustain serious debilitating brain injuries.

* JOKE!

Statistically or practically?

No no my mistake lets get personal instead and I will claim i answered it whilst one of does bizarre rub your trouser "jokes"?

We do have that responsibility indeed molgrips, and we make judgements about that many times each day in lots of ways. And in most cases, when this does not involve others, we make those choices individually. IMO helmets should be the same instead of - "I saw someone at Swinley the other day without a helmet. It boiled my....".

Why? That's his/her choice.

😀 @ molgrips!

Pffft... I'm not wearing trousers either. Or pants.

Just a dead hooker.

ransos - Member

I asked you to think about something, which you've decided you don't want to do, for reasons best known to yourself.

I seem to remember stating that I would answer your question when you had answered mine, apologies if that wasn't clear.

I will end our dialogue, as it's clear that you're only interested in arguing for its own sake. I suppose it fills the time.

Coming from the man who could simply end the pointless circle by actually providing an answer to the question I posed, but repeatedly chooses not to, that's a bit rich matey!

My motives for arguing were clearly stated in my first post. I'll repeat them if necessary. 🙂

Enjoy your trouser rubbing.

How many times dude, I am not wearing trousers!
I don't even have any trousers to hand to give a gentle rub, should the desire arise.
Why the fixation with me rubbing myself? 😕

(Will post video for cash) 😉

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

It's a very good idea, as discouraging people from riding motorbikes is good for the health of the population.

Anyway, if I'm not going to wear a helmet, this is the helmet I'm not going to wear;

[img] [/img]

I got one the other day from Halfords and it's proved to be very nice. No doubt it will join all the others I've collected over the years, but for now....

When I first read pingu's comment I thought hey up that's not nice, then I re read it in context & gave him the benefit of the doubt. Bad analogy maybe or poor choice of words whatever you want to call it granted, but I don't think he or any other cyclist is going to ride past another injured.

Why the fixation with me rubbing myself?

(Will post video for cash)

I heard they were the most ventilated helmets around, crikey.. Is that why you like it?

I fancy one.

Good choice crikey. I'm mostly not wearing a Specialized S3. I was going to not wear a Prevail, but that proved a bit to pricey for little extra benefit.

This is probably a waste of time, but is this the summary so far:

a) Some people are saying you don't have to wear a helmet to cycle, they're not really going to make a difference in a RTA, but do in some cases. (and most of this lot say they actually wear them some of the time)

b) some people are saying that if you don't wear a helmet everytime you get on a bike you are going to end up dead.

c) one person says they'd ignore you if you fall off a bike without a helmet on but really they wouldn't but they might do, so respect them.

d) someone's got no trousers on and is rubbing themselves.

e) everyone should give up and ride their bikes (after doing a full risk assessment and deciding on appropriate PPE obviously)

Sorry Terry, that isn't going to end the debate....

Much more succinct summary in the first seven words of that post, Terry!

For comedy value, here is me, on the busy roads, wearing a helmet AND high-viz vest:

[img] [/img]

You all wear a high-viz vest right? Common sense really. Be lunacy not to. Darwinism in action. I wear mine in bed. 😀