Do you think it would be ridiculous for a pedestrian to wear body armour and a helmet?
Not in any way. I went to school with a girl who had a brain injury and needed to wear a protective helmet all the time, in class, everywhere.
Walking down the street, it is personal choice, life is a risk.
The rest of your point is just taking it to extremes.
No if you get crushed under a lorry where the wheels go over your head, then armour probably won't help.
However, people have survived getting crushed under lorries, some by mm, others have died by mm, perhaps armour would make the difference.
I wonder if we took 1000 crash test dummies in lycra and tossed them under artics, and and other 1000 in stormtrooper gear, there would be significant measurable differences in outcomes, with the survivability of the stormtroopers being much higher.
Also many accidents are not getting crushed under a lorry they are bouncing off a windscreen at 30 mph, and I can see how armour and a full face would help in a big way.
The point with accidents, and safety is that small things can often make a big difference.
I am not arguing for compulsion so I can't see what your problem is, it will make a difference in many/most accident scenarios apart from the most extreme. If you choose to wear armour than I am pleased that the kit exists and that manufacturers put research into making it more effective.
perhaps I should wear a helmet for taking the wheely bin out.
If teh risk is teh same as walking, riding, drivi9ng etc,. then you shoudl wear one for all those activites or don't wear one for all of those activities depending on what you feel about helmets.
What you shouldn't do is wear one cycling but not walking. Well not if you actually thought it through anyway
Not in any way. I went to school with a girl who had a brain injury and needed to wear a protective helmet all the time, in class, everywhere.
Walking down the street, it is personal choice, life is a risk.
I think we might be applying different tests to this question.
You’re kidding yourself if you think you can be 100%
Yeah. As with pretty much anything in life.
Try to enjoy it while it lasts mate and stop worrying about folk you've never met not wearing helmets in situations they themselves deem pretty low risk of head injury.
*Just to explain as you've clearly not understood. I'm perfectly aware 100% being sure I am able to pull something off is not the same thing as I 100% will pull it off. Shit happens. I'm ok with that.
Clearly no-one can be 100% sure when it comes to predicting future events that befall them, but here’s some food for thought:
If you look at the data from New Zealand for the mid 1990s you’ll notice a few things. Firstly, that around the time that their compulsory helmet law was introduced, the recorded number of person-hours of cycling fell by roughly half. Secondly, that total recorded numbers of head injuries sustained while cycling was unaffected: specifically, although that figure fell slightly over the same period as the drop in cycling rates, it fell at a rate which matched the slow but steady downward trend that was already underway and continued afterwards.
So, what do those facts imply?
Well, consider that helmet compulsion will, in theory at least, have no effect on any cycling which is already conducted with a helmet. It is only when people would normally choose not to use one that they are affected. Im this case they have three choices: to ignore the law and continue to cycle without; to continue to cycle but to comply with the law by wearing a helmet; or to not cycle. The data cannot give us any insight into the first two choices, but it is clear that a large number of people chose the third.
Yet total head injuries were unaffected. Why would this be?
The most reasonable explanation is this: that people are actually pretty good at assessing their own personal level of risk. Those who either cycled less or ceased altogether were, it seems, not suffering head injuries anyway—or at least, if they were, they were doing so only to the extent that the Peltzman effect caused an increase in casualties as a result of greater helmet use (and the data does not tell us whether this effect is zero or greater, only that the two offset each other).
So there is much to be said for personal choice: without this, you lose the societal health benefits of cycling but retain the problem of trauma injuries. When looking at the population level (rather than offering single anecdotes) evidence very much suggests that we would be wise to trust people’s self-assessment of the risks they face and how they deal with them, and that taking that away is entirely detrimental to public health, even if you only consider trauma injuries.
So there is much to be said for personal choice: without this, you lose the societal health benefits of cycling but retain the problem of trauma injuries
The only thing is...noone here has actually called for mandatory helmets. Even those such as myself who wear them virtually all of the time and insist the same of their kids and those under their charge, would not insist that they are made legally mandatory.
Why? For the same reason I don't want compulsory bike registration, insurance, mots etc - they are all obstacles in the way of people cycling and, ultimately, are a negative thing. Whatever so called health benefits might exist regarding forcing people into helmets are (imho) massively outweighed by just getting people to ride their bloody bikes, however they do it.
Yes, I will still tut at kids on red descents without them and yes, I will send kids packing from coaching if they don't have one. I also, personally, believe that we are safer when wearing a helmet and will keep wearing mine for the simple reason that it's so little effort to do so, but that's a long, long way from forcing everyone else to do it. Even geex and his 100% success rate 🙂
Went out today for a wee 10 mile jaunt, got to mile 6, heck I've forgot my helmet.
I'm lucky I didn't die.
The only thing is…noone here has actually called for mandatory helmets.
Agreed, but there are multiple people who have either questioned the legitimacy of self-appraisal of risk or who have referred to the non-use of helmets as “the height of stupidity”. Evidence would seem to counter both of those stances.
Following Bez's argument above its also shown that even promoting helmets has a negative net effect on public health by giving the impression cycling is dangerous and thus putting folk off cycling causing an increase in diseases of inactivity. the protective benefits of helmets are so low and the health benefits of cycling are so high that you do not have to put many folk off cycling for it to have a negative effect on public health
To go back to the OP - why don't I wear one. Basically they are unpleasant, sweaty and uncomfortable, they are a pain when you are in shops and pubs, Its just much nicer riding without.
Mind you unlike most folk when I do wear one its fitted properly with tight straps. If I am going to wear one I want it to be as effective as it can be. the vast majority of folk I see wearing helmets even at the likes of glentress are wearing badly fitting helmets and do not do the strap up properly.
If it's a flat ride, or just my local woods, no helmet. (They're all hot and unpleasant, for me at least).
Gnar - helmet and knee pads.
No helmet no ride for me either. I come off 1/2 mile from work and split my helmet , I’d probably have been dead. Not going MTB without my full face now either I come off on an easy piece of trail at medium pace a month ago and had my 1/2 shell on as I couldn’t fit my bt headphones with my FF 😩. I messed my face up over 100 stitches and lost some of my nose , again if I didn’t have my helmet on and safety glasses I’d probably be brain damaged or dead. Not to mention 4 weeks lost wages.
I look at people as silly when I see them riding without a helmet anywhere .
I look at people that land on their face as silly! 😆
As someone that has had neurosurgery (not bike related) and learnt that I am not immortal I can't but help think many posts on this are basically "ignorance is bliss".
Carry on,I actually don't have deep seated concerns about mandatory helmet usage.
As for me, I'll go by my own risk assessment and say that wearing a helmet is rarely a bad thing to do when riding a vehicle with 2 wheels that is inherently unstable.
I mean, it takes me longer to put my socks on than to clip the helmet on....
It's fairly obvious the risks are quite low and the number of "helmet saved my life" stories vastly exceeds any plausible estimate of the number of deaths that would occur in the absence of helmets. For all that people like to argue that cycling is some feat of astonishing death-defying bravery, it just isn't very dangerous. I usually wear one for MTBing where I believe there's a substantially higher risk of a preventable head injury compared to road riding, but I'm not fanatical about it.
I can’t but help think many posts on this are basically “ignorance is bliss”.
Not really. Always goes back to knowing the risks and accepting them. When it all goes wrong it looks very different (especially to the individual for whom it has all gone wrong) but that doesn't change the actual risk.
I also assume anyone that wears a helmet when doing any cycling that is not 'gnar' also wears one when walking or are all pedestrians also in the 'ignorance is bliss' camp...
and of course all those for whom wearing helmets is a "no brainer" also wear full face helmets with neck braces for all riding ? Full body armour as well?
I was a bit concerned for the future of the forum when this thread started, but now it's just back to the usual helmet debate nonsense so I can sleep easy.
I saw someone wearing a green helmet yesterday.
For me, riding without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt, it just feels wrong. I always wear one, just part of riding bikes. It doesn't bother me wearing it, can't see any downsides and I've written a couple off in crashes that might otherwise have done me some damage.
Each to their own, but I would have to have a think about going on a mtb ride with someone who refused to wear one. Like people in the past who turned up for a day winter hiking in the hills with no backup equipement, I could be placed in a situation where I would have to deal with their negligence.
Gloves, why is there never a great glove debate?
Try to enjoy it while it lasts mate and stop worrying about folk you’ve never met not wearing helmets in situations they themselves deem pretty low risk of head injury.
I'm not worried, like I said - it's your choice and I wouldn't say anything either way.
Of the riders that I've known to regularly not wear a helmet -
Some are just nutcases and will probably be a Darwin award candidate at some point in their future
Some are stoned (quite a high % of BMX trail riders)
Some think wearing a helmet will introduce an element of doubt, and that not wearing a helmet focuses them on not crashing, riding more in the moment and not even considering crashing. Remember the Jason McRoy quote at Mammoth Mountain DH where he was tanking it down the hill in full on lycra- "Why am I not wearing body armour?" "Because I'm not going to crash".
Me - I'd like to be in the third camp, but I have a wife and family so I'm in the "wear a helmet - it's the least I can do" camp.
Never wear on when out on my own. 54 year old bimbler, Been riding off road since before you guys were born.
Always wear one in events, trail parks, or road cycling in a group
I have a wife and family so I’m in the “wear a helmet – it’s the least I can do” camp.
Which is what's at the core of the helmet debate. There's often not a lot of analysis behind helmet wearing, which is why it's so galling when you get told you're stupid for not wearing a one.
Helmet wearing is the thing that you do; the least you can do; the default option. You make a choice not to wear one and, to many, there aren't any good reasons for choosing to forego the "standard level" of protection - it's more a tick box conformity exercise than anything else.
Going back a few years, the "standard level" was nothing. You didn't have to have reasons for not wearing a helmet. You made a choice to wear a helmet and you had reasons for doing it: you were racing off-road or you fancied yourself as a gnarly freerider like Jez Avery in Dirt. People who wore helmets either had good reasons for it or had an overblown idea of how dangerous cycling was.
Now the standard level is wearing one, you don't need any reasons for wearing a helmet, but you'll often be asked why you don't wear one. You need reasons. People who don't wear helmets are stupid, irresponsible, selfish people who don't care about their families or they just don't realise how dangerous cycling is.
The flip from conformity/non-conformity has happened at different times for different activities/sports in different countries. skiing/snowboarding half pipe/piste riding, North America v France/Europe, road cycling, mountain biking, BMX street/dirt; city cycling/pootling in UK v. Europe.
And there still isn't a weight of population data showing that wholesale helmet wearing makes a huge difference to levels of head injury.
Gloves, why is there never a great glove debate?
And shoes? I once agreed to take a friend of a friend out to show him some trails. He said he rode a lot, which was probably true judging by how utterly knackered his bike was. He turned up wearing sandals and was a bit astonished when mountain biking turned out to involve riding on unpaved trails.
When I got my first MTB as a child in the late ‘80s, bike helmets also seemed like the new normal thing to have. So for me wearing one is just a habit. I’ll occasionally hop on a bike without one but I’ll rarely go for a ride without.
But I totally agree that their safety benefits are massively over-exaggerated and that making them compulsory would be a terrible move. Bikes should be seen as an easy form of shorter distance transport, like a fast alternative to walking - you don’t need a helmet for that and it isn’t going to help much (if at all) if a 1.5 tons of car or a far greater weight of bus or truck drives into or over you.
And many people who flap about saying ALL CHILDREN MUST WEAR BIKE HELMETS don’t seem to care that the majority of kids wearing helmets have them on so far back that if they go over the bars their forehead and face is totally unprotected.
their forehead and face is totally unprotected
I don't see how a regular bike helmet is ever going to protect your face.
You should just rename these threads "Do you understand 'risk'?"
this one in particular should be renamed "Can you understand a simple question?"
From the replies. Very few here can.
I never wear a helmet. But then the MTB riding I do is easy. Around Mugdock, or Cairngorm Circuit type stuff. Road riding is either urban or touring.
Why? I tried wearing one and found I got a sore neck after a few hours. I don't think my cycling is risky. I've been riding bikes 50 years now without an injury accident. This includes 20 odd years of commuting and various tours both UK and Ireland and 3 times across the USA.
I try and minimise my risk by choosing carefully where I ride and how I ride. So far so good. Both my sons are full time bike commuters (Glasgow and Cambridge). Neither wears a helmet. From what I have seen Cambridge has a huge share of journeys by bike and a low helmet rate. Doesn't seem to be a head injury epidemic there.
“I don’t see how a regular bike helmet is ever going to protect your face.”
FOREHEAD and face. The distance a properly fitted bike helmet projects in front of a young child’s face is significant - their noses are so small compared to adults too. So many have them on behind their hairline, so there’s no frontal protection at all.
Agree about personal choice. I couldn’t care less whether other adults riding on their own or in groups that I’m not part of do.
i wouldn’t ride in a group if another rider didn’t have a helmet on though. Seen enough unnecessary blood as a First Aider and IMO it’s selfish to go on a group ride without a helmet.
Why? For the same reason I don’t want compulsory bike registration, insurance, mots etc – they are all obstacles in the way of people cycling and, ultimately, are a negative thing.
Yeah it's the same ****ts who want to regulate cycling into the ground also tend to want mandatory helmets, and it's certainly not 'cos they care for the health of cyclists, more like they are just spiteful b@stards.
Personally I always wear a helmet now and have done since 2000. There is virtually no downside to wearing them so the protection (even if slim) is worth it. Plus I can put a light on a helmet during winter.
Virtually no downside *for you*.
I hate the ****ing things. Went to Brenin with my new soda last weekend, first ride. Helmet came off for every climb. I'm a head sweater and even in the dead of winter I find them intolerable.
Wear 'em for gnar as I'd be stupid not to as the risk is higher. But nothing else.
I wouldn’t ride in a group if another rider didn’t have a helmet on though. Seen enough unnecessary blood as a First Aider and IMO it’s selfish to go on a group ride without a helmet.
No. It's actually incredibly selfish for a first aider to be so immature they'd refuse ride with a group because another rider chose not to wear a helmet.
If it's a guided ride and you are being payed to lead by all means have a no helmet no ride rule to cover your insurance but on a social ride stop being such a selfish idiot and use your common sense.
I've heard others say the same on here and can't believe they're serious. If they (and you) are I honestly wouldn't want to know someone so selfish. You should be ashamed of yourself. I wouldn't call you a First Aider at all with your attitude.
Geex. Didn't you argue that it was selfish to have the eminently sensible 'voluntary' restriction on riding up Snowdon and that we should ban walkers from some bits of the mountain?
I think you just don't like people criticising your choices.
I can understand why someone might feel that exposing yourself to unnecessary risk on a social ride is selfish. I think they're wrong - but only because they don't know how ro assess relative risk. But that doesn't deserve your vitriol, in the same way that, whilst mildly annoying, the snowdon agreement that keeps us riding there legally is understandable.
A wee point on peaks. why do MTBers have peaks on their helmets? what purpose do they have? I have seen 3 people injured by helmet peaks. OTB accident, helmet peak pushed into their face on the impact, one broken nose and two cuts to their nose.
IMO the peaks actually add to danger - so if you want the lowest chance of injury please remove your peak.
The other thing is helmets do not decrease your risk of accident indeed they may well increase your risk of having an accident- they MAY in some circumstances mitigate the injuries. Please differentiate between the two things - risk and severity of outcome. risk is how likely an accident is. Severity is what the outcome of that accident is.
From what I've seen of that geex fella he doesn't need a helmet but one elbow pad on his right arm would help.
Can’t say I follow your logic geex re my first aid point, but that’s fine. As a coach and MTB Leader I follow the BC guidance of no lid, no ride. Obviously that applies to group rides more than individuals off on their own.
" Seen enough unnecessary blood as a First Aider and IMO it’s selfish to go on a group ride without a helmet"
and
"As a coach and MTB Leader..."
Scary combination! Remind me to avoid your rides!! Too much blood even wearing helmets; sounds too risky, I'm out. 😉
I sometimes wonder about what and how helmets are worn. Out of date? Properly sized? Properly adjusted? Correctly fastened? Not damaged? Straps secure? Straps not frayed? Never mind the should you or shouldn't you debate!
psling 😀. Thankfully never had much First Aid need or blood on ones I have been leading or coaching !
Your point about fit is crucial. Led rides and coaching sessions include, as well as a bike ‘M’ check, a clothing and helmet check, which looks at fit, straps etc. Always amazes me how many need adjusted. Even this morning, with a group of 14 kids I coach every Saturday morning, 3 of the helmets needed the straps reset before the ride.
ianc just out of interest how many of those kids had properly sized shells ie ones that you cannot get your little finger between head and shell at any point?
@tjagain if that were the case, why do manufacturers make helmets that fit a range. My present helmet a Giro xar is 55 - 59cm which then has a cradle to adjust to different head sizes. If your statement is correct surely they would make helmets in 1/2 cm increments.
Helmet seems to have saved this bloke from much worse:
(Lorry driver attacks two cyclists with a hammer in Pontevedra, putting one in hospital with head injuries)
@chevychase. I'll let you into a little secret. I've never actually been anywhere near Snowdon in my life and don't recall the thread you're refering to. Does sound like something I might well say in jest though. But Shhhhhhhh... don't tell anyone 😉 Also. there's no vitriol here other than in your head, Please stop making things up, eh?
@Iainc It's not really MY logic, AFAIC it's just being a decent human being. Blindly refusing to ride with other perfectly sensible adults because you deem them to be at more risk of hurting their heads than they themselvs do is quite frankly mental. Even more so when you have taken the time to become professionally trained in how to aid such freak uncommon incidents as seriously hurting your head when riding a bike.
I'm not talking about while you're working as a coach or a leader following BC guidelines. I'm talking about normal group rides with others. This includes all quick journeys by bike with more than one rider. Or do you only see cycling as a serious "sport" that needs regulations at all time and an umpire who only ever partakes with all the kit and clearly no idea?
@SSStu Back when I dirt jumped a lot I'd wear knee pads but no helmet. Because I'd purposely land on my knees when bailing but never my head. Mibbie I should buy an elbow guard now I'm old and forgetful. They must sell them in singles, right?
Geex, it’s all about choice, as you say. I would choose not to ride in a group where some riders didn’t have helmets as in my opinion the chance of a head injury, were they to crash would be increased. I would never force my opinion on anyone on a social ride, as not my place to do so. I would probably just do a different ride and let it go. Choice as you say. As a First Aider I would always assist where possible and the more minor the trauma the better the likely trail side fix.
TJ - the fit space is a good point, escpecially for kids where they may get passed down from an older sibling. We look for a decent snug fit, correct angle, straps done up correctly. Not much more we can do in a kids coaching situation. If lid looks damaged/bad fit we will ask the parents that they come next week with one that is complaint.