Forum menu
[i]Not flapping my lips "purty" or otherwise... Perhaps just suggesting that your own mind is not as open as you state nor your argument any more convincing than another - despite your claims. Also I find your reference to age to be totally irrelevant. Your opinion is no more valid nor invalid because you are of greater age than others.[/i]
Do you actually have anything to add, or are you going to try to poke me all night?
However I'm with you on the fact that helmets won't protect you from all injuries Crikey! I mentioned earlier I've been both injured and uninjured in crashes when wearing a helmet.
[i]mentioned earlier I've been both injured and uninjured in crashes when wearing a helmet.[/i]
...that's the thing I'm trying to get across, there does seem to be a view that a helmet will protect in every accident, when it is clear, to me at least, that they won't.
I'd rather people rode with a sense of the potential danger they face than depend on the as-yet-unproven-ability of helmets to save them.
I just don't extrapolate that to mean that a helmet will protect me in all circumstances
me neither.. sometimes only a wheelbarrow will do
[img] 
[/img]
there does seem to be a view that a helmet will protect in every accident
I dunno if you might have invented that viewpoint though..
Definately not "poking" merely pointing out that the way you are communicating does not seem to suggest open-mindedness. You also seem to suggest very forcefully that yours is the only meaningful position - I disagree. Others have a right to a given position based on their data - even if the dataset is narrow, imperfect or subjective. Surely you are not claiming to be one of a very select few holding all the valid data and by doing so understanding and drawing the only correct conclusions...?
I have no data and seriously don't care if others use helmets, I have no axe to grind. I use a helmet as part of a cohesive approach to minimise risk - not as a panacea for all potential ills.
I don't actually think we are far apart on our views of helmet use - maybe we have just arrived there by a different means and communicate differently.
I sometimes think that debates on the Internet get so polarised because the subtleties of communication are so easily lost...
[i]Surely you are not claiming to be one of a very select few holding all the valid data and by doing so understanding and drawing the only correct conclusions...?[/i]
Not at all.
I reply in these threads to attempt to create some kind of balance, and to get my opposing view across. I mentioned religion because it seems that many of these conversations are populated by those who see helmet use as a completely obvious and unchallenged thing in a way that reminds me of religious views. Very few people stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the question or problem is a bit more complex than they understand.
It's not a black and white issue.
It is not informed by 'I cracked my helmet and therefore I'm not in a wheelchair' type comments.
There is an interesting and informative debate to be had, but most people seem to sidestep it and go for the 'well bang your head on a wall with a helmet, then try it without' approach. Not that useful, really.
[i]I don't actually think we are far apart on our views of helmet use - maybe we have just arrived there by a different means and communicate differently.
I sometimes think that debates on the Internet get so polarised because the subtleties of communication are so easily lost...[/i]
This.
Unfortunately, and [b]I'm as bad as the rest[/b], we seem to have get some obligatory insults in before we reach this point!
I'm pretty bad as well!
🙂
Frigging helmet wearers 😉
I'm worse.. 😳
I'm wearing a helmet now - in case I fall out of bed.
I'm stroking my helmet.. 😕
I'll admit to having only skimmed across the first and last pages but it seems to me that the first couple of posts were bang on (ie 'oh hey... lets not go there!')
I like the comments about explaining to your kids why you have double standards.
Ultimately it *is* your choice as cycle helmets are not legally required in the UK. It's just saddening how many of those choosing to skip the helmet trot out the '15mph' story and think it's clever. (as the helmet clearly offers no protection at 16mph whatsoever... 🙄 )
I've crashed and hit my helmetted head on many things like rocks and steel railings and completely avoided so much as bruising my head.
I didn't particularly plan to crash but I'm not too upset I did. I learned from it.
It's also interesting to note that most decent helmets will tell you they exceed the required standards -although granted they don't say how much by.
Things are rarely black and white, and safety is no exception. A helmet isn't meant to guarantee safety. It's meant to help mitigate risk and so give you a statistically better chance of avoiding serious injury - that you will be forcing others to help you recover from, if you're using the 'MY CHOICE!' argument.
Personally, I would almost without fail wear a helmet on a bike, yes even to go to the shop. There are any number of studies showing that the immediate area around your home - say a few minutes out - is quite possibly the most dangerous place you can be and the usual conclusion drawn is because people Know they are invulnerable on their own patch - demonstrably foolish, say the insurance industry.
what's wrong with wearing a camelbck rather than a water bottle? ok it was a few pages ago but still, cmon surely camelbacks are ok, no?
my helmets got fluff on it, will it still work?
We are discussing a hobby/sport where you are more likely I believe to fall than if you were either negotiating a staircase or walking.
Interesting belief given the stats on head injuries.
Though I really CBA arguing the stats - only one person was ever any good at that and he's been taken from us by a higher power. Therefore I'll present a few anecdotes - after all the helmet zealots always like to use them...
Somewhere back there somebody mentioned a person ending up with facial injuries when not wearing a helmet as a reason why not wearing one was a bad idea. Well I got severe enough facial injuries to spend 2 hours having stitches put in (under local anaesthetic - now that really is a bad idea!) and a couple of nights in hospital. I was wearing a helmet (do I sue the manufacturer?)
I also ended up with concussion and a trip to A&E after crashing in a pothole in the dark. Still don't remember the bit between coming off my bike and ringing my gf when I got home. I wasn't wearing a helmet - which might make you think this is an anecdote in favour of helmets, but on the contrary, the crash was of the severity to have completely destroyed a helmet had I been wearing one, yet here I am still capable of typing semi-intelligently. Which always makes me dubious about the claims of people who've crashed whilst wearing helmets who reckon that without one they'd be drooling.
Oh and my personal take on helmet wearing, I almost always wear one when riding a bike and my kids always wear them. However this morning riding a bike on the school run I forgot to put mine on and after a brief moment of feeling uncomfortable I got on with it and enjoyed the feeling of wind in my hair. Kids didn't seem to notice (which suggests I don't actually need one to set a good example - the school run being the sort of ride I don't really need to wear a helmet for). The kid across the road isn't wearing a helmet to ride, which makes me a little uncomfortable as he's new to riding and likely to have the sort of crash where a helmet would help. However my generation all survived learning to ride bikes without helmets, and I'm certainly not about to even comment to them about it - would rather he was riding without a helmet than not riding (though my son who's in his class at school did comment about it to us!)
Though I quite often don't wear a helmet to cycle. As is usual for me I didn't wear a helmet when cycling on the school run this evening. I only tend to wear a helmet to cycle when doing difficult off-road (not easy stuff where I'm very unlikely to fall on my head) or when riding fast on road.
I reckon my attitude to helmet wearing when cycling involves a better assessment of the real risk than my attitude to helmet wearing when riding a bike.
200!!
Some subjects are just flamebait - and this is obviously one of them.
It probably should have been locked by mods or moved to general chat as there is no way this could be held as constructive debate on the stated subject of why some people refuse to wear helmets.
@aracer (i wasn't going to post further but couldn't help this)-
Congratulations on surviving your pothole crash. This neither proves nor disproves the relevance of helmets.
A helmet is relevant when the area covered by the helmet is a point of impact. This is the main reason the 15mph-ish thing is actually fine. By the time you start bouncing your head you have probably lost most of your velocity. If, say you had taken a long low dive from the bike you might have destroyed your jaw or rolled awkwardly and damaged your back - and a helmet wouldn't have done Jack). You could have tangled your legs in the bars, gone over sideways and been runover by a passing car while prone in a position you would not otherwise have been in and again a helmet could not have helped in the slightest. Even suggesting that a helmet (especially a minimal roadie helmet) will do much to protect the face or any other area of the body not under it is almost as laughable as imagining that a cycle helmet is a magical defence against a 30+mph car that will let you walk away uninjured.
Conversely, the trend to deeper coverage at the rear of the head in mountain bike helmets coupled with the realistically slower pace (of non down-hill) off-road cycling compared to a racer on tarmac alters several of the usual entry points in the debate. It is also a consideration that a road accident is a very different proposition to misjudging a hillside trail and ending up on rocks below - the likely impact profiles are completely different.
Where a helmet will help is very specific impacts to the cranium that can cause concussion (which can be benign or life threatning) or cause serious damage to things like the ability of your optic nerve to chat to your brain. Many times you may simply scuff, graze and cut yourself up; lose teeth, bruise or break cheeks, jaws etc. Other times you may be less lucky- which is really the key word.
All activity can be shown to hold risks. Helmets simply make some of the less palatable risks less likely. I suspect that if in your example you were to attempt to sue, the question of why you didn't see the hole and rode into it would be raised. If you were simply going too fast then this is pretty much indefensible. Remember; the purpose of a helmet is not to make injury impossible; it is to substantially reduce the risk of crippling yourself in certain circumstances.
I understand you are big enough to make your own decisions but I do not believe you can predict how or indeed, if you are likely to hit the ground or any other given obstacle on a given day before you even get on the bike - therefore the risk assessment is actually more of a la-la song, but if this makes you happy then that's fine.
What I find strangest about cyclists and helmets is that by and large motorcyclists and horse riders agree they are a useful thing. Likewise in most of the country it's been the accepted norm to wear seatbelts since about 1978 or whenever it was (exceptions for parts of West Yorkshire and probably other places that I haven't lived in). So why is cycling different?
I really don't care that you don't want a helmet or even if you wear one or not. What I object to is your wrong-headed 'logic'.
What I object to is your wrong-headed 'logic'.
Which bit of my logic? Did you actually read my post properly and understand the point I was making with the pothole crash anecdote?
I'm quite convinced you didn't understand the part of my post where I mention not wearing a helmet to cycle on easy stuff 😉
What I find strangest about [s]cyclists[/s] drivers and helmets is that by and large motorcyclists and horse riders agree they are a useful thing. Likewise in most of the country it's been the accepted norm to wear seatbelts since about 1978 or whenever it was (exceptions for parts of West Yorkshire and probably other places that I haven't lived in). So why is [s]cycling[/s] driving different?
FTFY
Oh and my personal take on helmet wearing, I almost always wear one when riding a bike and my kids always wear them.
this is the most salient point..
an old mate reckons all cars should have a spike on the steering wheel to improve concentration
Your friend tells some cracking jokes I bet he is a fungi
[img] 
[/img]
a spiiiike
[img] 
[/img]
trot out the '15mph' story and think it's clever.
Well, firstly it's 12.5mph, and that's for the stricter SNELL tests which aren't used any more. The reason I mention it is that impact energy goes as the square of velocity - so an impact at 25mph will have 4 times the energy that the helmet is designed for.
I have no objection to helmets. For what they're designed for (low speed impacts) they're fine. What I object to is the idea that they'll be much use at higher speeds, when basic physics tells you they probably won't.
The reason I mention it is that impact energy goes as the square of velocity - so an impact at 25mph will have 4 times the energy that the helmet is designed for.
That doesn't mean the helmet won't still absorb a good amount of that energy though. Even if it's a quarter of it, that's still potentially a big difference to a head injury
As I said 18 hours ago...
If I don't want to read all that, has somebody made an amazing point which will sway me from my current position? Or is it the same old same old?I'm currently working on the assumption that people who still partake in 'debate' on helmet threads have recently sustained a head injury.
So, has anyone contributed anything new which will sway me from my current position yet? Or, have you all been wasting your lives?
My helmet is sore this morning, is it still ok to use it ?
The slightly silly party polled no votes at all.
Whether a polystyrene helmet is going to protect you from a full on 20 mile/h head first collision with a rock, I'm far from convinced about, but I can't possibly see how it won't protect you from certain types of impacts. And even if thats just a glancing blow that would otherwise have required stitches, then thats good enough for me...
I completely agree - it's why I wear one.
I had a couple of spills when out mtbing in the Mendips on Sunday - I have a sore shoulder and a swollen left wrist. So why do the evangelists not advocate body armour as well as helmets?
Bugger all. Not a sausage. Are you at all disappointed with this performance?
My helmet is sore this morning, is it still ok to use it ?
Go to your local GUM clinic.
My helmet is sore this morning, is it still ok to use it ?
nettles applied liberally should render it safe for general usage..
I struggle with long sentences, but props to the other Rusty for the Charlie Mingus reference...gonna listen to the man tonight. Probably Ah Um and maybe some Blues & Roots, too.
[img] 
[/img]
yunki-- so thats your bag 😉
Did once have some warts remove from my helmet, with electric lance, it looked like a swiss cheese after, fortunately the human body is brilliant at repair !
So why do the evangelists not advocate body armour as well as helmets?
because your brain in encased in your head - and whatever impact you have, the helmet is going to reduce the impact energy to some extent, reducing the likelihood of concussion or any other injury.
because your brain in encased in your head
But your spinal cord is in encased in your neck and back, and you heart and lungs are in your chest. All are fairly important components.
I'm a huge fan of polishing my helmet.
SEVEN PAGES 😯
we did it just to make sure you could count...now if you had a head injury form not wearing a helmet.....
**** me 7 pages in less than 24hours we're getting really good at this aint we?
<edit> personally I reckon yes helmets are probably a good idea but no, going lidless is not tantamount to assisted suicide or playing russian roulette.
But your spinal cord is in encased in your neck and back, and you heart and lungs are in your chest
but smacking your head is a fairly easy thing to do compared to the other injuries.
smacking your head is a fairly easy thing to do compared to the other injuries.
Yeah, maybe. Though a collarbone or wrist injury is even easier to do which makes me wonder at the people who say they would have [i]"no sympathy"[/i] for someone with a head injury and no helmet, but would presumably be sympathetic to someone with a broken wrist or collarbone.
Anyway, pointless anecdote time: a mate of mine broke his neck skiing (fortunately without damaging his spinal cord, lucky boy) and I do sometimes wonder if the helmet he was wearing contributed to the twisting action on his neck.