Goan, let's see your research then; you're doing a lot of criticising and not much backing up...
My mum's dead so I have had to make my own mind up!
How very grown up of me.
As an aside, all the races and events that I know of, be it a Merida, Sleepless, Mayhem, etc etc all insist that you wear a helmet.
thats good to know dan however its not been reviewd by the peers so it never happened.it would seem.
crikey thats your world and how it works for you.you cannot insist that we all live in it.
Goan
ou clearly do not understand the antomy and physiology or you would undertand that linera impacts do not cause the shearing of blood vessels in teh way that rotaional ones do
The new scientist article is about reducing the rotational forces not enhancing the deceleration properties whatever that is supposed to mean
The helmet is designed to limit the rotational forces affecting the head during an impact and is currently undergoing bench tests.
The wiki and cyclehelmets org sites I linked to as both have long lists of references for you to follow both for and against. if you wanted to learn.
Nonk - I linked to the BMA debate as it has good arguments from both sides of the debate and references to follow and to show that not all doctors think helmets save lives. My GP cycles and refuses to wear a helmet as he would rather have focal brain injury from which recovery is good than a diffuse axon injury from which recovery is rare and he believes that diffuse axon injuries are more common if you wear a helmet.
Righteoe. I realy don't think I can ad any more. I have explained my position and how I have come to that from my reading of the evidence. I have provided links to the evidence and pointed out some areas that I believe are pertinent.
I like evidence based practice not superstition and anecdote
well eplained on the doc front.
however this is a website for cyclists so in my view the anecdote has some value thats kind of why i am here.
A cycle helmet may protect against the most superficial of injuries likely when riding like a loon offroad ( scuffing trees, vegetation and such) and though I rarely bother myself, I'd not consider it a bad idea for that reason.
For general cycling, commuting and riding to the shops, and thats what I thought we were discussing, they send out the message that" OMG! CYCLING IS DANGEROUS, PROBABLY FATAL!" and to make matters worse, dont offer any protection against the dangerous ,probably fatal sorts of accidents that people wear them for.
TJ - go and punch your bed as hard as you can, then go and punch the outside wall, then come back and tell me that you dont understand what i'm saying.
Good grief. Ive just noticed this thread growing bigger by the day.
Within half a mile into a 10mile time trial at Culloden moor i approached some crossroads and a car pulled out on me without looking.Apart from leaning on a pair of tri bars at the time i would have thought i was reasonably safe.. just pedalling along on a quite scottish country road in a straight line with no obstacles in the distance.what could go wrong? a puncture? a broken chain? maybe.. but that wouldnt be too much of a problem.Then it happened.Something appeared that i wasnt expecting and i hit it.I wont go into it again but the helmet is in a cupboard and the compression in the polystyrene close to my temple is quite some diffrence compared to the undamaged side.After it happened i can only remember a blanket and an ambulance. I didnt know how to get home after hospital (i made it hard for the driver that took me home from the hospital as i couldnt really tell him how to get to the house) we detoured a bit but finally got there.
but you know what? i got home that night. for the sake of wearing a helmet that weighed next to nothing it was well worth having on. one of those little things that doesnt make too much odds.. but well worth it.
I tried to drive to work the next morning but felt so clumsy and spaced out that i turned back.Its only once its happened TJ that you wish you HAD put one on because for the small hassle,its worth so much. Not just to you,but for the folk around you as well.
Once it happens you ask yourself how sore it would have been without it.how cut open you might have been. How big the crack in the skull might have been.how long you would be in hospital (if yer lucky enough to still be there) how long you would have been off the bike.the list is endless.
My mothers friends son died cruising down the street many years ago without a helmet. he wasnt paying attention and wobbled a bit.. then fell and clipped the edge of the kerb and killed himself. this could have possibly been a quick trip to the shop around the corner.who knows.It can happen anywhere,anytime.
Jeremy,please spend 5 mins watching this video.Ive seen this very rider fall about 6 years ago at a skatepark during a u.k tour.during a fall,the bike hit the back of his head into the floor of a concrete pool.He was a bit dazed but lived another day.It didnt make him wear a helmet after that.. it took a lot more to drum the message into him but finally something happened that DID.Please watch the whole of the first video and ask yourself for the hassle of wearing a helmet - is it really worth it? They weight nothing,they are really comfortable and they dont look stupid.why leave home without one if you can agree on that? Can you agree,TJ? If you could agree,and said that you would wear one for every ride from now on.. i would send you a new helmet tomorrow.
TandemJeremy - MemberAbsolutly Kimbers. crushed helmet and headache = maybe fracture certainly flesh wound without one possible serious head injury.
They simply do not turn life threatening injuries into non injuries tho.
edit :Aye Kit - but you would not have been dead. You probably would have had a proper hospitalised type injury
TJ - when it comes to helmets you are a first class bellend.
martinxyz, the lesson I would take from your anecdote, has nothing to do with helmets and everything to do with not riding on unstable-hands off the brakes-timetrial bars.
Worse than religion...
I'm out of it too; you can tell a mountain biker, but you can't him much...
Martin. Thank you for the offer but no need - have a read of my long post a page or two back.
Rob - thank you for your considered, erudite and mature response
But you guys all believe in Global Warming, right?
😈
Glad you're OK Kit, sounds like a nasty one... Not been a good couple of weeks for Edinburgh riders and helmets I think!
Shame that these threads can't help but become clashes of faith... Both sides know perfectly well there's both logic, medical and scientific evidence to support both arguments, yet selectively pick and choose what they want to bring to the table and dismiss everything else, or choose to exagerrate the effect of one type of injury and ignore others to support the anti-argument, or similiarly ignore those injuries as they don't fit the pro helmet argument. It's not discussion, it's dogma. No point in even getting into these conversations really...
Kit wrote: "Not that I needed convincing, but every medic I saw tonight (quite a few!) assured me I'd likely be dead if I hadn't worn my helmet."
That's exactly what they said to me when I had my big road crash. I didn't know a helmet could offer such protection from a shelf 2 miles away 🙂
But, I could crash the same crash tomorrow and be killed.
I'll not get into the discussion, I just cannot be bothered again but here's the one thing that I hate:
"NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT HELMETS SAVE LIVES"
Of course they can't. How could they? The nature of these injuries is that no such proof is possible. But this is totally different from proving that helmets don't save lives.
Global warming? Its a fact that all the heat from debates on intent fora the world over has increased the temperature by 2 zillion degrees.
Sorry for hijacking your thread BTW
I was once hit side on by a car in Edinburgh when I used to commute. I mounted the bonnet bounced of the windscreen and ended up twenty metres away, next to the kerb. I considered myself extremely lucky not to have hit my head as I had chosen not to wear my helmet that day. I would never chose not to wear a helmet again as i feel that I've had my lucky escape. There can't be many routes through Edinburgh where there isn't the chance, no matter how small, of some kind of incident. I'm just not going to take the chance again. I don't want see compulsory helmet wearing. But I think if you are on your bike there is always a chance and I don't want my kids asking why I didnt't wear helmet.
oh no,westkipper.. if you search back months ago you will find that i might have mentioned getting onto the hoods more than early enough,thought about braking for a moment as i watched the car creep out of the junction, THEN start to brake.. pity i ended up skidding and snaking for quite some distance before hitting it. Theres no tread or contact patch big enough on a road bike to help you stop when these things happen.
bit like covering the brakes in a car.. was told not to do it during my lessons.
Thanks TJ, i put a £20 bet on with someone that you wouldnt agree!
Glad you are ok Kit, nearly forgot to say.
I believe the Australian, NZ, Canadian and other Governments came to the completely opposite decision to TJ & his doctor.
For those old enough to recall, we had this same debate 20 years ago. Smoking? It's not been proved that it's at all harmful.
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/why-cycle-helmets-save-lives
YOu could go like this for the next 20 years.
What I do know is that the top of my head would be a quite different, scarred, battered place than it is now, safely tucked away under my lid as it is.
The Australian, NZ and Canadian governments have subsequently seen head injuries reduce by less than the real( about 30% ) decrease in cycling.
Its a well remarked upon phenomenon, and consistant across all countries that introduce compulsion.
Whereas, those that have very low rates of helmet wearing are the safest.
Weird, eh?
Just incase west kipper is not clear #enough - in NZ after helmet compulsion the rate of head injury per mile cycled increased
Kit - sorry - a bit late to this thread - can't have been fun and glad you lived to tell the tale. 🙂
I have had an accident whilst riding my bike with no helmet.
I lost consciousness for over an hour after hitting side of my head off of kerb.
I also crashed whilst wearing helmet and put rather large dent in said helmet and broke two ribs as well.
I know what I will be wearing next time I ride a bike and I really dont care about statistics etc. tbh.
Just incase west kipper is not clear #enough - in NZ after helmet compulsion the rate of head injury per mile cycled increased
Another pathetic line. Things reduce or increase for reasons
For instance, DH and/or freeride really wasn't heard of 15 years ago ( especilly not to nowadays standard). When a sport potentially this dangerous becomes the norm for alot of bikers then of course accidents will increase compared to trails you used to ride (old skool days). During my early racing days, training and fun rides contained danger far less than what is available today.
The sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys
Raddogair. 'go and read the EVIDENCE the NZ stuff is about road cycling. Of course there must be a reason but no one is sure what it is.
Anecdotes prove nothing as you simply do not know what would have happened without the person wearing the helmet. They might have been injured. They might not have hit their head at all it might have made no difference.
If you want to critique this stuff thats perfectly reasonable and there is plenty to critique - however you need to read it first
Blimey is this still going?
I don't dispute the obvious, if overstated benefits of wearing a lid. I too have had a helmet save me from a skull fracture, I always wear mine and insist the kids do.
..but I'm very much against compulsion and all those who have called TJ (or anyone else) a knob for not wearing one is.. a knob. If they passed a Law making wearing one compulsory I too would ride around with mine dangling from my bars.
My nasty bang on the head was caused in similar circumstanes by someone pulling out on me in a car. They could see me, they just weren't looking.
If the BMA is serious about preventing cyclists head injuries it should be trying to reduce the number of collisions - most obviously by calling for improved driver training, testing and licensing, stiffer penalaties etc.
Make helmets compulsory and all you do is re-inforce the myth that cyclists are a danger to themselves, drive cyclists off the road and remove all the health benefits of cycling.. which the BMA are too well aware of.
Oh and get well soon kit 🙂
Thanks for all the positive comments guys.
Now, can we put this one to bed?! Night night zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Currently my favourite quote on any STW thread is from DANO:
[i]"Lots of motorcyclists suffer from broken necks"[/i]
PMSL!!!!
Can't be bothered reading all that, but I see lots of people mentioning racing, DHing, MTBing, skateparks, etc. I'd wear a helmet for those.
I don't wear a helmet for my commute, which is a sedate affair on quiet roads riding a big heavy stable bike in normal clothes.
As a sensible person above said, the risk in any activity is on a spectrum, from lying flat on the floor of a padded room to taking a dive off a tower block onto concrete.
I wouldn't wear a helmet when walking to work, so why would I when cycling relatively slowly on a very similar route?
I'm a bit late to all this but is the argument about a) is it a sensible idea to wear a helmet most of the time? or b) should wearing a helmet be made compulsory?
Personally I'd go for a) yes and b) no.
I don't wear a helmet for my commute, which is a sedate affair on quiet roads riding a big heavy stable bike in normal clothes.
Remember though miketually that this thread is all about Kit being knocked off his bike on his commute whilst on the road. Just because its a quiet well known piece of road for you, it doesn't mean the same about the drivers who potentially could knock you off
The sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys
This is just wrong. Sorry.
Remember though miketually that this thread is all about Kit being knocked off his bike on his commute whilst on the road. Just because its a quiet well known piece of road for you, it doesn't mean the same about the drivers who potentially could knock you off
It started off as that, then became "OMG you'll die if you so much as swing a leg over a bike without wearing a helmet!!!".
[i]As an aside, all the races and events that I know of, be it a Merida, Sleepless, Mayhem, etc etc all insist that you wear a helmet. [/i]
I suspect that's as much to do with the litigious times we live in as anything else.
The paramedics love all this safety kit as it just makes their job easier...scooping you off the floor!!
And a darn site less messy!!
Like motorcyclists - I advocate full leathers for all cyclists.... there couldn't be a better body bag than that!
I always wear a helmet when Mountain Biking but never do when on a local loop of tow paths & Canal paths!
Never really thought about it, but reading this is making me think again!
Quite embarrsed to admit how stupid I have been, no longer!
Is this STILL going?!
Can guarantee TJ turning up on every one of these threads... You can prove pretty much anything with statistics and to show the point there's endless info here (from America) on injuries and helmet stats:
Particular reference to the following:
Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders.
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
Ninety-five percent of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren't wearing helmets
Helmets may reduce the risk of death:-
almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
Everyone has some sort of anecdote about how their helmet may have saved them, about how it may have made it more serious (TJ's favourite rotational injury), you can selectively choose research from anywhere you like to show what you want.
Proof of that can be found in this very funny clip:
Good to hear you're OK Kit, get back on the bike soon.
200!
sorry...
Of course the OP would never have had the accident if he hadn't been wearing a helmet. The time to put it on and the extra wind resistance meant that instead of passing safely in front of the car before it pulled out the OP was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How many of you helmet gauleiters wears a hi-viz every time you get on a bike on the road. Far more likely to save your skull.
No need to link Godwin's law, I'm aware of it.
This thread keeps going because the helmet evangelists keep going on about their 'beliefs' and us Dawkins types keep pointing to the (lack of)evidence.
Not Hi Viz, but festooned with lights front & rear for when I'm on the public highway.
Jacket, and shoes have reflective strips in-built.
I rode for 22 minutes this afternoon from Watford to Harrow and it still scares me how drivers simply don't seem to notice bikes. I was not a happy biker at all, but I would not be happy to have ridden my road route without a helmet - that'd just be plain dim - there's way too much street furniture / clutter to hit, let alone the cars trying to turn out or across my path.
Anyhow, back 20 years, and the argument was similar: the smokers all told us "it's not been proved that smoking's bad for you" We had no sympathy then and we have no sympathy now.
@kipper.nope you just made it bigger.
No dimmer than leaving the hi-viz off in daylight where your reflective strip and lights don't make a jot of difference. Your clothing was black I bet, possibly grey looking at this year's Assos collection.
To me helmets are like car insurance, you dont know when you might need it, but you'll be glad you had it.
Im an oldish git,I choose to wear a helmet, some peeps dont, their choice....
Kramer - MemberThe sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys
This is just wrong. Sorry.
If you read this thread you'll find that it is indeed right. Good to hear your sorry though!! 😉
non-helmet wearers clearly have very thick skulls anyhow, so no need to worry. not to mention the earth is flat, so there is nothing for them to hit that thick skull on 🙂
No dimmer than leaving the hi-viz off in daylight where your reflective strip and lights don't make a jot of difference. Your clothing was black I bet, possibly grey looking at this year's Assos collection.
Thats like saying people cant drive black cars because there less colour visible than bright yellow!!
I dont mind making the thread bigger, as long as people put forward their beliefs, I'll feel the need to counter them( and without insults).
Never the less, its true that the safest countries to cycle in are the ones that have the lowest rates of helmet use, and ones with high or compulsory use have relatively higher rates of head injury and death.
Thats why organisations like the CTC are totally against compulsion.
Car colour has a significant impact on accident rate. I haven't used the word "can't" and won't. I won't insist on anyone wearing a helmet or a hi-viz. Just pointing out the inconsistency in the behaviour of the helmet dictators. Our club's helmet dictator never wears a hi-viz and regularly jumps red lights. Typical of the "I'm wearing a helmet so I'm alright attitude". A false sense of security is the main thing a helmet provides, in terms of real protection a typical XC helmet isn't great. Wear a ful face if you wan't to protect your head properly.
As I've pointed out in a previous thread- many mountainbikers are riding way beyond the performance envelope of the best full-face motorcycle helmets, yet they are wearing flimsy pieces of plastic that shares no features of the former other than the same six letters.
If your serious about head protection while riding like this, and you're not wearing a motorcycle quality lid then, in my view, you're being way more irresponsible than me.
this thread has made my night. i thought i'd be bored stiff having a night in while the missus goes out.
i've decided to never wear a helmet cycling, a seatbelt driving, steel toecapped boots at work, oven gloves when cooking, a safety net while on a trapeze.
no false sense of security now.
may god preserve our freedom to choose, amen
We should preserve this thread and any time this debate rears its ugly head just refer back to it.
Crazy legs - indeed you do prover the point of proving anything with stats. for example the 14 times more likely to get a head injury is referring to children in the USA and the website it comes from does not quote any sources for its research. Assertion without reference is not evidecne.
Other stats from that site are easy to discredit.
the main flaw is that it uses after the fact surveys of people attending A&E this will always creat false positves as it cannot consider all cases. It does not consider those who don't wear helmets and don't crash, it does not consider those who wear helmets and get worse head injuries as a result - a rare but possible combination. it does not consider that those who wear helmets have higher rates of crashing etc etc. Very very flawed research.
Self selecting sample always create bias.
TandemJeremy - not sure if you are serious or just trying to wind people up for a change.
Would TandemJeremy like to scientifically test his head for impacts and compare the damage with someone who is wearing a helmet having the same impact. Start with small impacts and build it up....... I think not.
Point proven. Helmets CAN save lives.
end of.
...but it is a free country AND YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU LIKE
Convince me, then.
Tell me why, when compulsion was introduced in Australia* and NZ, injury and death rates relative to cyclists WENT UP?
* In Oz this was also against a backdrop of the introduction of other road traffic laws that should have seen a FURTHER hypothetical reduction in casualties
As I've said, I'm willing to be persuaded...
west kipper so you'd like to take TandemJeremys scientific test for him??
(granted that people wearing helmets may take more risks and skew the statistics)
Lesanita.
I am perfectly serious.
Read the evidence and have a think about it.
the real scientific evidence points to helmets being good at protecting you from minor impacts - bumps and bruises, cuts and scrapes. The evidence for them protecting aganst major impacts is far less convincing although some mitigation of impacts would seem probable. Tehre is also evidence that in some cases they make injury worse.
The testing and design of cycle helmets is seruiously flawed
Accross whole poulations the evidence is even poorer - as west kipper points out when helmet use rises so does head injury rates. many explanations have been put forwward for this but none are totally convincing.
The final point is that cycling is safe - a serious head injury every 3000 years of cycling accors the whole population of cyclists.
So wear a helmet if you want - but don't be fooled abnout how efffectivce tehy are
TJ, couple of questions:
1. Do you believe in the current compulsory motorcycle helmet law?
2. Would you wear a motorcycle helmet given the choice?
Just curious.
Rusty - I wear a high spec fullface crash helmet when on a motorcycle along with head to tow body armour
I am ambivalent about compulsory motorcycle helmets. Its a non isssue to me
Its a far more claer cut situation with motorcycle helmets being far more protective than cycle helmets and the risk of he3ad injury on a motorcycle being far higher.
I just get fed up with the continual evalgelic attitude of people to cycle helmets ewhen the evidence for tehm is so poor. Before cycle helmets there was no epidemic of head injuries amongst cyclist and there really is no good evidence for helmets reducing mortality and morbidity
I do wear one on occasion - for Trail centres and other riding wear the odds of crashing are high. I enjoy wandering around the countryside on easy trafic free trails wear teh odds of crashing and sustaining a head injury that would be prevented by a helmet are so low as to be insignificant. In those circumstances I am prepared to accept those odds. it really is millions to one
Lesanita,I'm guessing you're not a scientist, and thats not a scientific test, and for the impacts that would cause serious injury or worse, the difference between the polystyrene clad head and the bare one would be so minimal as to not mention.
If they made any difference in such circumstances their own manufacturers would make bolder claims for such.
The risk compensation arguement is not limited to cyclists being a bit more daft, the more worrying suggestion is that motorists take more risks with cyclists lives as they (subconciously) percieve them as being better protected. If thats true, then not wearing a helmet may PREVENT the accident happening in the first place.
Something to think about...
TJ - you are always quoting this argument...
"If the impact would have been enough to kill without one then even with one you would have had a serious injury. That's the nature of the beast"...
...which is just fundamentally flawed and simply wrong!
I seem to recall you have some involvement in the medical industry, but certainly you are lacking in gross knowledge on brain injuries, their mechanisms, and the potentially serious outcomes of even simple head injuries.
Take for example a [url= http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-677773288 ]subdural haematoma[/url], this can occur following simple head injuries that can be sustained following a fall from standing height. The sufferer doesn't 'instantly die', but can die minutes later from the pressure effect, or be left with irreversible injury. A helmet will dissipate this energy into a 'safe amount'.
See [url= http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=1275461634&linkID=7577&cook=yes ]here[/url] for further details on the secondary consequences from head injury.
Of course, if a truck were to hit you head on no manner of body armour would offer an ounce of hope, but it really is boring, repetitive, and [b]quite simply wrong[/b] for you to forever chunter on with your ideas that all head injuries fall into one of two classes:
1 - dead without a helmet or crippled with.
2 - fine without a helmet, fine with.
This isn't a jab at you personally, just an incorrect idea you seem to have picked up somewhere.....
DrP
Dr P - and I have never said that. One of the really galling things about this debate is people continually telling me I have said things that I have not - I fully accept another category - no injury with helmet,( minor )injury without helmet. There is also another category - focal brain injury without helmet, diffuse axonal injury with helmet due to the increase in rotational forces. This is real although of low probability
""If the impact would have been enough to kill without one then even with one you would have had a serious injury. That's the nature of the beast"..." Is true as a general rule. Go and read the evidence on how helmets work. For sure you can get a subdural on a fall from your own height - but this is very rare.
Cycle helmets simply cannot absorb enough energy make significant difference to major trauma as a whole for sure you can have a very unlucky fall and have major trauma from a low impact and in that case a helmet might well substantially mitigate the trauma - but how frequent is that?
You however seem to think that helmets offer more protection than they do - like many others seem to.
It is not me that has failed to grasp the debate - you have failed to listen to what I am saying and instead make up your own version of what I am saying and also have failed to follow the evidence.
I do understand how brain trauma works - I have worked in head injuries ITU and in head injuries rehabilitation.
If you want to argue with me do so - however do me the courteousy of actually reading what I say and of following the evidence.
I would not insist that you or anyone else here wears a helmet, nor have I ever suggested this.
You have made your assessments, and I have made mine, as have various governments around the world & one assumes the may various cycling governing bodies and we have all come to two different conclusions.
There exists two camps, those wear helmets and those who choose not to, and I'm not going to tell you to wear one, nor have I ever - that's your choice.
PS - Edu, your strange assumptions about clothes are, of course, very wide of the mark.
I guess this thread has run it's course for me as I've not read anything that makes me change my mind about wearing a helmet; put simply there's no compelling evidence to overturn what I have experienced, witnessed and heard from others that would see me leave my lid at home.
T1 29r - such as the CTC? Have a read of the links on their site?
Compulsion laws in other countries have reduced the number of people who cycle – and the more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes. What's more, cycling is such a healthy activity that people are far more likely to gain from it than otherwise. It's therefore important not to put anyone off.Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688
I do not say others should not waer one - but I do say that hthe evidence for wearing them is thin, the odds of injury are lo [i]in some forms of cycling[/i] and that it is not foolish not to waer a helmet for some types of cycling
Have you actually followed any of the evidence?
I do note that no one who has been arguing that you should wear a helmet everytime you get on a bike has actually produced any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny for their position.
apart from this
crazy-legs - Member
Is this STILL going?!
Can guarantee TJ turning up on every one of these threads... You can prove pretty much anything with statistics and to show the point there's endless info here (from America) on injuries and helmet stats:Particular reference to the following:
Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders.
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
Ninety-five percent of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren't wearing helmets
Helmets may reduce the risk of death:-
almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
but like all evidence its flawed.
Unfortuantely, there's been alot of people on this thread that have said that wearing there helmet has POTENTIALLY saved them from a worse incident. Its just wrong that you need some over paid scientist to tell you that this would or would not of prevented further injury. INstead of listening to them, listen to people that have been in accidents where they think that a helmet saved them from further injury. That to me is real evidence.
I came off whilst going down caddon bank(on video somewhere) and landed head first at about 30mph. I had major neck injuries for some months but my head was untouched. I know from my other body injuries that if i wasn't wearing a helmet( which cracked every single panel) that my head would be cut to shreds at a minimum. Now before you go on about the helmet could of caused the neck injuries i know by how i fell that regardless of a helmet then this would of happened.
As like other stories i prefer this as evidence rather to words in a document.
[i]That to me is real evidence.[/i]
...and is the equivalent of asking smokers to tell you how dangerous cigarettes are rather than asking oncologists.
Fail.
That to me is real evidence.
...and is the equivalent of asking smokers to tell you how dangerous cigarettes are rather than asking oncologists.Fail.
It's also on a par with the "It's cold at the moment, so climate change is a myth" argument.
I battered my head on the roof of the van when we were moving house. I hit it hard enough to see stars and feel dizzy for a minute or two. I wasn't wearing a helmet, but could easily believe that one would have been crushed if I had been.
It always amazes me how many people would definitely have died after a bike crash if they hadn't been wearing a helmet, yet the streets weren't littered with dead cyclists before helmet-wearing became more widespread.
crikey,
that, I think, is the post of the thread!
crikey - Member
That to me is real evidence....and is the equivalent of asking smokers to tell you how dangerous cigarettes are rather than asking oncologists.
Fail.
And thats why i wrote 'that to me'.
As i said its sad that you would take the word (because all TJ's and the others arguments about not wearing a helmet also note that if you did wear one then there's nothing to say that injuries would be less - apart from impacts less than 12mph) of science rather than those who ACTUALLY do the sport and receive the injuries themselves. But i suppose science has never been wrong 🙄
Because the experiences of those who 'actually do the sport' translate directly into medical statistics, and those statistics show that helmets are not as good as people believe.
People are easy to fool; religion, alternative medicine, katie price, etc.
so is TandemJeremy or west kipper going to take the scientific with/without helmet impact test?....
ps. west kipper - yes I am scientific. I am a chartered mechanical engineer, so aware of the benefit of taking the sting out of an impact with a bit of polystyrene.
p.p.s. I accept XC helmets aint perfect. Looks like you are entrenched in your thoughts as are the rest of us on the other side of the fence.
p.p.p.s Maybe we should be writing to Brianiac or Mythbusters? Anybody got a contact for them?
p.p.p.p.s I should be decorating now, rather than typing (it was my excuse for not riding this morning!)
do the sport' translate directly into medical statistic]s, and those statistics show that helmets are not as good as people believe.
and statistics dont take into account ALL the people who have not visited A&E because they've managed to get up after a crash and cycle on instead of been taken to A&E.
People are easy to fool indeed, relying on stats for a start.
As i've said in earlier posts, i've lost count how mant times i've crashed and hurt myself or'had a bad un' but just MTFU and carried on riding. Tell me how do science know how i've crashed ??
Fact is they cant but people like you believe that there word is god given
How many of these people went to hospital, 2or 3 maybe. How many are glad they wore a helmet and saved them from serious head injuries ( speculation i know, but doesn't take a scientist to see that it did)
[url=
Ok, if what you say has any grounding in reality, why have rates of head injury not fallen as helmet use has risen?
Let's take a hypothetical scenario, let's make helmets compulsory and let's see what happens to head injury rates...
Only its not hypothetical, its happened, and head injury rates got worse.
If helmets were shown to be effective i'd wear one all the time. If they were shown to be ineffective, would you stop wearing one? I suspect not because helmets in mountain biking are part of the look, part of the uniform, an indicator of your credibility in a sport that is very concerned with image.
They just don't work to prevent serious injury, MTFU notwithstanding...
[i]Crazy legs - indeed you do prover the point of proving anything with stats. for example the 14 times more likely to get a head injury is referring to children in the USA and the website it comes from does not quote any sources for its research. Assertion without reference is not evidecne.[/i]
TJ, that's my point! I'm a chemist by vocation and fully aware that anything I write be it in a lab book or professional journal needs to be fully cross-referenced with every piece of data I've used quoted and catalogued. That website I linked to is a compilation of data from all over the US (some states with compulsory helmet laws, some without, some from affluent areas, some from poor areas etc) and I'm aware that it has precious little in the way of referenced data, in fact in some cases it quotes "best guesses".
However the general public who bang on about this kind of thing on the Daily Wail website have zero clue about referenced data, in fact the journalists writing it usually have sod all idea as well and will simply dumb it down to the appropriate level without even understanding what they're writing.
Hence my point that statistics can be twisted to fit any scenario you care to dream up. In the meantime I'll go with the actual evidence that I've seen and experienced in my 16 years of riding and racing bikes on and off road and exercise [b]my personal choice[/b] to wear a helmet whenever I ride. I know it's not perfect but [b]in my opinion[/b] it's better than nothing. Meanwhile I respect your decision NOT to wear a helmet at times.
I think it depends where you ride. All my road riding is on rural roads, I don't wear a helmet as I don't see that it will protect me if I am hit by a car/lorry travelling at 50+mph, I've seen the damage a ton and a half of metal can do and I think I would rather die instantly of head injuries than over an hour or two from internal injuries. I always wear a helmet off road as the liklyhood of a low speed bump where it would protect me is much higher.
Freedom of choice!
My main argument against compulsion is if we allow this where does it stop. High vis gear? Then what, body armour?
best of all are the riders who wear leg/body armour and no helmet 🙂