[Closed] Helmets and a climate of fear.

I know for a fact I take much more and far bigger risks when I do wear one. hence not bothering wearing one if I'm not going to be pushing it.

So it seems like you are saying you wear a helmet because you are going to be taking more risks.

Rather than the suggestion that you take more risks as a result of wearing a helmet ??

OMG!! 😥
no wonder you thought Hugor had a good way of communicating 🙄

How can I conduct my Scientific Experiments without volunteers?

Sigh....

hugor - Member

Given that the majority of citizens abide by the law and do not risk challenge themselves in their daily commute to work I see no reason to not wear them.

There's (rather weak) evidence that drivers pass closer to riders wearing helmets- risk compensation doesn't just affect the rider, drivers seem more willing to put helmetted riders at risk.

I think part of the problem may be that people tend to define cycling in their own terms
[b]STWforumposter01[/b] just rips up trail centres, (where I think a helmet is a good idea). When he reads a post by TJ suggesting helmet use isn't necessary in every situation, he thinks of it in his own frame of reference and finds the suggestion a bit daft (and probably gets abusive).

On the flip side, [b]Dutchbikerider01[/b] who just pops down the shops to pick up the papers on the weekend (a situation where I believe the risk of head injury to be on par with walking) reads the same post and thinks in terms of his cycling and concludes TJ's view to be perfectly reasonable.

Obviously on here, we have many more [b]STWforumposter01[/b]'s than [b]Dutchbikerider01[/b]'s, so the concencus is wear a lid. But there are some multi-discipline riders on here like myself and TJ.

My stance is appropriate protection for the activity. So, on the tourer, relatively low speed, low risk, I'm a tourist who happens to be on a bike - no helmet. On the MTB, higher risk of coming off and bumping my head on a rock/tree/sheep etc - helmet. Ripping it up in the alps - full face. Motorbike where speeds are much higher - much heavier helmet offering much more protection.

In terms of the general population, who probably just pop to the shops at the weekend or ride an old railway trail, I agree that helmets offer little benefit, but cycling does. Promoting "cycling" in general as dangerous and requiring a helmet does nothing to encourage these people, which can only be a bad thing for health of the population as a whole.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

@elf - how about using a melon? Could make a good vid for YouTube...

There's (rather weak) evidence that drivers pass closer to riders wearing helmets- risk compensation doesn't just affect the rider, drivers seem more willing to put helmetted riders at risk.

That's the crazy man from Bath. He's a traffic psychologist and rode down the street with and without a helmet and measured the distances passing cars gave him.
Do you know he also wore a long women's wig in that study?
It's the truth!
The findings with the wig were that cars gave him the most space than the other 2 scenarios.
Are you going to start wearing a ladies wig on your daily commute to work?
I don't have access to this paper as it is not published in a medical journal so I can't really comment on the methods he used to get the data or how he interpreted them.
He sounds a bit nuts to me! I don't give it much importance.

is this belief of yours founded only from your own experience? Speaking as someone who happens to ride way more without a helmet than with one I know for a fact I take much more and far bigger risks when I do wear one. hence not bothering wearing one if I'm not going to be pushing it.

I don't think your riding habits represent those of the average recreational cyclist but to my knowledge there is no risk compensation data out there so it can't be proven either way.

[quote=GW] I know for a fact I take much more and far bigger risks when I do wear one. hence not bothering wearing one if I'm not going to be pushing it.

[quote=nealglover]
So it seems like you are saying you wear a helmet because you are going to be taking more risks.
Rather than the suggestion that you take more risks as a result of wearing a helmet ??

[quote=GW]
OMG!!   
no wonder you thought Hugor had a good way of communicating  

I don't see the issue with my question ? 

The risk compensation idea seems to suggest that cyclists will take more risks due to wearing a helmet 

(the helmet being the deciding factor)

But you said that you wear a helmet due to knowing you will be taking more risks. 

(the level of risk being the deciding factor). 
.
.
I wasn't arguing either point, I was simply asking if that's what you were meaning that's all. 

(But thanks for the veiled insult and rolling eyes. 
You kind of proved my earlier point.)

hugor - Member

Are you going to start wearing a ladies wig on your daily commute to work?

Already got that covered, I have a proper pat sharpe mullet

Why does he sound "a bit nuts"- because he did some practical testing and reported the results?

If I was going to get hit on the head with a hammer I'd rather be wearing a helmet. Just like when I ran up the stairs and smacked my head on the loft ladder hanging down I'd rather have had a helmet on. And when I smacked my head on a low hanging beam in a hotel. And if I was going to smack my head on the tarmac, or a tree or a rock when on my bike I'd rather have a helmet on than not.

But the point IMO is about the actual probability of any of these things happening, viewed in the context of other `risks' that society deems acceptable- for example, the risks of not wearing helmets and armour when standing at bus stops, given that there have been a few incidents of people being killed by cars at bus stops in Birmingham alone in the last few years. The stuff about people removing themselves from the gene pool, or selfishly disregarding the potential impact on their children or families by not taking some simple precautions is just daft. If we all lived our lives that way we'd never leave our houses or do anything without armouring up. But as pointed out above, the risks for just riding about don't seem to be high enough to worry about, or at least worry about any more than 100s of other things that could kill us.

So for me the case for compulsion doesn't really add up, even though I do wear a lid nearly all of the time.

I wasn't arguing either point, I was simply asking if that's what you were meaning that's all.

oh.. and forget helmets or wigs a farmfoods carrier bag hanging precariously from the right handlebar grip gives you the most room from motorists, as does a slight (intentional) front wheel *wobble as you hear a motorist approaching from behind.

* replace with a wheelie if you're an accomplished wheelieist

@elf - how about using a melon?

It's not the same. Won't provide me with data which will provide incontrovertible facts on helmet safety.

Only Human heads will do.

Roll up!

I don't think your riding habits represent those of the average recreational cyclist

but to my knowledge there is no risk compensation data out there so it can't be proven either way.

So you'd exclude certain types of recreational cyclists from your findings if they don't meet YOUR definition of average (ie. don't give the answer you were looking for?

You can't legislate to suit the entire bell curve only the majority in the middle.
Those above the middle don't need legislation cause they work things out for themselves.
Those below the majority think they know better and resort to abuse and or bullying tactics when their limited intellect is challenged. This is you.
I'm outta here. Wear or don't wear what you like. I couldn't care less.

With regards to REGULAR RECREATIONAL CYCLING I believe wearing helmets:
1. definitely prevents head injures
2. doesn't subject the rider to greater risk of crashes through risk compensation.I believe wearing helmets:

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Any evidence?

Normal driving as part of a job is not perceived as risky. Risk compensation was still found in the study of taxi drivers. Other than your belief is there any reason risk compensation should not apply to regular recreational cycling?

Given that regular recreational cycling is so safe it would only need a tiny risk compensation effect to outweigh helmet protection.

bye bye Hugor.. 😥

[img] [/img]

Wear or don't wear what you like. I couldn't care less.

If we could only start, and end helmet debates with this, I reckon we could save a few coronaries, never mind head injuries.

Elfin, about this test of yours...
Here's the thing, if my chosen hobby was being hit on the head with a hammer (don't judge) then I'd buy and wear a head hammer helmet. Now, the thing is, (and here's the gaping hole in your logic) my hobby is cycling around enjoying the view on my way to pick up the Sunday paper. And so, for that hobby I choose appropriate protecting, which obviously is a wooly hat as it's parky out and I don't want cold ears.
So you see, this "test" you keep inviting people to partake in is at best daft. Have you hit your head at some stage?

irc - Member

Given that regular recreational cycling is so safe it would only need a tiny risk compensation effect to outweigh helmet protection.

Good point, well made. Except that risk compensation definately doesn't exist in cycling because Hugor says so.

I'm sitting in a beautiful pub in Edinburgh with 2 gorgeous Australian women. I don't wanna argue anymore. Unfortunately this pub has wifi and I keep coming back here! 😥
In response to NW above, I said there was no evidence to support risk compensation in cycling not that irisk compensation doesn't exist. Scroll your mouse back a couple of turns and you'll see that.
At the moment risk compensation in recreational cycling is no more than a hypothesis.
You don't make major legislative decisions based on unsubstantiated opinion. Evidence is currently lacking so the right thing to do is maintain a conservative approach.