Forum menu
Well, everyone knows a nasty bit of road near where they live. I imagine it's that.Anyone care to guess why that might be? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
What I want to know is: will kimbers wear a lid when he goes to the shops next time?
Why would I wear a helmet to drive my car?
I do think wearing a helmet would've helped even if my nose(which is very sore) and possibly my eyebrow would be hurt but it would've helped prevent the gash which i think burst open with the force of impact, kind of like a tomato does
Nasty gash. What caused the accident OP?
kind of like a tomato does
A Tomato abuser! Stone him!!
With an injury to that pathia head I'm suprised you didn't need a samabalence.
Anyone care to guess why that might be?
The serious answer - it's because all journeys, if they start or finish at your house, cover the roads near your house.
It just goes to show that you're no LESS likely to have an accident, on a per mile basis, just because you're just popping to the shop.
If you ride to the shops 2 miles away three times a week without a helmet that's 26 miles a month, the equivalent of one MTB ride. So it's a bit pointless to not wear one for the shops whilst wearing one for longer rides. Bad drivers and bollards don't care how far you are from your house.
I hope everyone is also [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11318824/My-35-little-red-dress-saved-my-life-says-crash-victim.html ]wearing their little red dresses[/url] while in cars. It could save your life.
I wear a full face motorbike helmet and leathers all the time, just in case.
If you ride to the shops 2 miles away three times a week without a helmet that's 26 miles a month, the equivalent of one MTB ride
Equivalent distance, not equivalent risk. I've now idea which is of the lower risk, but you can't draw risk conclusions based on differing journeys (well you can, but they'll be wrong esp with low risk activities such as cycling)
If you ride to the shops 2 miles away three times a week without a helmet that's 26 miles a month, the equivalent of one MTB rideEquivalent distance, not equivalent risk. I've now idea which is of the lower risk, but you can't draw risk conclusions based on differing journeys (well you can, but they'll be wrong esp with low risk activities such as cycling)
That's probably three hours a month of riding. Statistically, you have to ride for something like 90 years to be guaranteed a serious crash, which is a lot of trips to the shop.
The serious answer - it's because all journeys, if they start or finish at your house, cover the roads near your house.
Indeed. Five points to Hufflepuff. 😀
Having said that, I went to a lecture recently where a Professor of Analytics was talking about catching bats.
Turns out that if you just string up a net in the forest the bats will fly round it because they easily detect it, but if you string up the same net across the entrance to their cave then you catch them easily.
It's only natural to let your guard down when you are on familiar territory.
Statistically, you have to ride for something like 90 years to be guaranteed a serious crash
Statistically, you're never guaranteed one. But in any case a chance of less than 100% is still a chance. Let's assume the probability approaches 1 in 90 years, then even in 30 years of riding to the shops you've got a 1:3 chance of a serious crash on the way to the shops. I'd wear a helmet for that!
Equivalent distance, not equivalent risk
Quite so, I was assuming constant risk for all cycling which isn't true. In fact, I'd say urban cycling is more risky due to lots of cars containing drivers who are having to look out for lots of things; and the prevalance of such things as bollards and dozy pedestrians.
Conversely, if you are on an MTB ride there might only be a couple of difficult or fast downhills and the rest could be climbing at 4mph or cruising traffic-free. I don't think helmet off-road and no helmet on-road is a sensible criterium because road is probably more dangerous than all but the fastest or most careless off-road. And "just going to the shops" is no better.
a chance of less than 100% is still a chance
Do you wear a car helmet?
i hit a bollard in a dark alley
ive been down the alley loads and loads of times, never really noticed the bollard just subconsciously avoided it
if it was an unfamiliar place id probably have looked better and proceeded with more caution
definitely a case of familiarity making me careless
Do you wear a car helmet?
No I have airbags and a rollcage.
A chance of less than 100% can still be a SIGNIFICANT chance. I can't see the relevance of your argument here.
Have we started arguing yet?
I can't see the relevance of your argument here.
There's a tiny chance of a head injury when walking to the shops.
There's a tiny chance of a head injury when running to the shops.
There's a tiny chance of a head injury when cycling to the shops.
There's a tiny chance of a head injury when driving to the shops.
I was just checking that you were only advocating helmet wearing for one of these activities.
Not quite yet Hora, but the protagonists are flexing their intellectual muscles....
[img] 
[/img]
😀
Friend of mine badly broke his ankle stepping down the stairs. He almost had to have it fused. 😯
Awwww - could have been worse, it could've been your nan!
binners I don't like the punctuation that you've used. It looks threatening, lets argue.
Lets all just stay away from shops, people.
(am including fast ffod establishments/restaurants, for clarity)
[quote=molgrips ]It just goes to show that you're no LESS likely to have an accident, on a per mile basis, just because you're just popping to the shop.
It doesn't show that at all. If 80% of accidents are within a couple of miles of your house, yet 90% of mileage is on roads within a couple of miles of your house, what is the risk of riding within a couple of miles of your house compared to the risk elsewhere?
What I do wonder is if the OP had been wearing a helmet, and had therefore destroyed it in the crash, whether that would then have been trotted out as a "helmet saved my life" anecdote.
Lets wrestle instead.....
[img] 
[/img]
Glad your ok OP [i]OOOF binners stop lifting me by my gstring strap [/i] 😯
This guy doesn't need a poxy helmet to pick up his shopping:
😯
was just checking that you were only advocating helmet wearing for one of these activities
Is 'tiny' a mathematical term? Cos you seem to be saying that the risk is the same for each activity. Or maybe you are saying the risk is insignificant? Perhaps you should tell the OP that 🙂
I reckon the risk is greatest when cycling, out of that list you posted. But anyway this thread is not about overall risk, it's to point out that the risk is not diminished simply because you are only going to the shops.
The difference in risk between the activities is relatively small, but doing one without a helmet leads to hysteria.
My average speed on a 'proper' ride is higher than if I'm popping to the shop, so the risk is higher. Had the OP been running to the shops, he'd possibly not have seen the bollard and sustained the same injuries...
without a helmet leads to hysteria.
ha ha... only on here. 😆
I pretty much never wear one and ride pretty much every day (about 6000miles a year split 2:1 between road and mtb with a bit of BMX)... only time I even get comments it's from relative noobs with all the gear.
get well soon funky dred bloke.
The difference in risk between the activities is relatively small, but doing one without a helmet leads to hysteria.
I challenge both of those 🙂 No-one's being hysterical. I'm more annoyed with the shit logic than people's heads tbh. If you don't want to wear one say so; don't try and wheel the maths out.
[quote=mtbel ]without a helmet leads to hysteria.
ha ha... only on here.
You reckon? http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm
[quote=molgrips ]The difference in risk between the activities is relatively small, but doing one without a helmet leads to hysteria.
I challenge both of those No-one's being hysterical. I'm more annoyed with the shit logic than people's heads tbh. If you don't want to wear one say so; don't try and wheel the maths out.
No, you're right. All the evidence I've seen suggests far more lives would be saved by compulsory bike helmets in cars than compulsory helmets for cyclists. Not to mention walking down stairs, showers etc.
Assume you were going full chat? Lucky boy, could easily have given yourself a head injury and endedup in a deep keema.
Yes I reckon.
Surely only a STW regular would have even found such a website 🙄
Perhaps a light on your bike could have prevented the accident.
Dark ally, didn't spot bollard, right?
Hope you heal fast.
mtbel: it's [i]really[/i] not just here. Honestly. Spend time on any bike forum, in a bike group on social media, or even just in an actual cycle club or hanging around a cycle cafe and sooner or later [i]The Great Helmet Debate[/i] will come up.
Even mainstream media picks it up on occasion - see the arguments and outrage about Chris Boardman not wearing a helmet on the BBC for a recent example:
Ironic that Chris Boardman will do more to increase cycle safety than any of the helmet evangelists.
Now if we could all just stop arguing the toss about helmets and focus our efforts on supporting Chris's work, we'd really be getting somewhere.
Graeme. What are you on about? I'd rather not spend all that much time on any bike forum thanks (discussion like this kinda sums it up for me) and I'm guessing your social media must be full of STW types. FWIW I have ridden with actual cycle clubs for 30+ years... you know, since before helmets were even common.
For me, it's not a debate even worth entering into. I have had the odd comment over the years from folk who haven't gotten to know me very well yet but funnily enough, without a keyboard to hide behind they'll generally make one stupid comment. i'll shrug, smile, laugh or say nothing at all and that's an end to it. Seems impossible for this to happen here so I'll leave you all to it.
All the evidence I've seen suggests far more lives would be saved by compulsory bike helmets in cars than compulsory helmets for cyclists. Not to mention walking down stairs, showers etc
Is that because more people drive cars and take showers than ride bikes?
The people who slip in showwers and fall down stairs, are they the same demographic as cyclists? Are you comparing like for like? Do you care, or are you trying to justify your position? Even though you don't need to?
In answer to the original question - no, I don't.
The reason being that over a period of years I've experimented with the reaction to cyclists wearing all the gear against those wearing 'normal' looking clothing and there's a definite difference. With that in mind but not wanting to forfeit the benefit of some garments, I now wear some full length Humvees, a tightish windproof, a pair of Spesh Sonoma and a fleece skull cap (winter attire, all black - looks a bit special ops or something). The difference in the space given by drivers is very noticeable.
Try it - you'll be surprised at the difference.
In answer to the original question - no, I don't.The reason being that over a period of years I've experimented with the reaction to cyclists wearing all the gear against those wearing 'normal' looking clothing and there's a definite difference. With that in mind but not wanting to forfeit the benefit of some garments, I now wear some full length Humvees, a tightish windproof, a pair of Spesh Sonoma and a fleece skull cap (winter attire, all black - looks a bit special ops or something). The difference in the space given by drivers is very noticeable.
Try it - you'll be surprised at the difference.
This is back up by research: http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
Ah, didn't know that. It's good to know I'm correct in my approach, then.
Thanks for that...
Edit : The 'Obree Wobble' is another worthwhile addition to your cyclist protection strategy.
you were arguing that only "STW types" get into a hissy fit about helmets, Graham pointed out that the rest of the world seems to aswell. Lots of media reports and court cases regarding cycle (and has to be said, a vehicle is normally involved aswell) incidents state whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet.Graeme. What are you on about? I'd rather not spend all that much time on any bike forum thanks
Whether [i]you[/i] care about it is a different matter.
Lots of media reports and court cases regarding cycle (and has to be said, a vehicle is normally involved aswell) incidents state whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Indeed: a report on a cyclist killed because their pelvis was crushed by a HGV will mention whether they were wearing a helmet; a report on a pedestrian who died of head injuries will not.
(Showing a similar bias, cars reported as being involved in accidents often appear to have been driverless, based on news reports.)