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 🙂
As any use of statistics is considered suspect I'll just make an observation based on cycling through a number of lands:
The proportion of cyclists wearing a helmet is inversly proportional to bicycle use as a means of transport (rather than recreation).
Extreme exemples: In Amsterdam there are lots of people going places on bicycles but almost none wear a helmet. In Birminghmam there are very very few cyclists on the roads but almost all wear a helmet.
Sorry, double post.
The most interesting part of the debate for me is the [url= http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722 ]BMJ Rapid responses[/url]. The diversity of opinions and the people who are quoting them makes interesting reading.
Practically I'm happy to accept we can't do a proper 'trial' of bicycle helmets effectiveness in reducing brain injury or death, but we should accept that it is a personal choice to use one or not.
For all the ridiculous reasons, I think it's important off road, where the likelihood of me having an off is all down to me, but the chance of an accident on the road will be far more related to motorists, the speeds involved and blunt solid objects they will hit me with. A bit of polystyrene won't help so much then.
If all with the strongest of opinions either way would sign up for this little experiment I've got planned maybe we could come up with some answers... 😮
This debate is not going to change people's practices, TJ's opinions/presentation of evidence is not going to change my mind about when and where I wer a helmet.
Its fairly obvious that TJ is not going to change his mind either so let's agree to differ and let this thread go ..
Kit - Happy you are okay...
People do the lottery for the 1 in 14 million (or what ever) chance of winning the Jackpot
I wear my helmet all the time, for that 1 in 14 million chance (or what ever) that it might save or at least not leave a scar so much (even on easy canal paths, where that bloody dog runs out in front of you)
I dont want to take your beloved helmets away from you, and I'm sure that crikey and TJ and others dont either.
I just want people to think about it a bit more. A helmet may save you ( as an individual) from a minor injury in that million to one accident BUT the relentless foaming-at the mouth promotion of them makes cycling less desirable as an everyday activity and makes it( for various reasons-see thread) more dangerous for everyone, hatted or not.
It would be interesting if helmet use were promoted the same way for car occupants- It would save many more lives.
Do you ever see a racing driver getting into their car without one?
the relentless foaming-at the mouth promotion of them
proof of this please.
Nonk-there's seven pages here!
no mate thats anecdote.
