[Closed] Why you shouldn't wear a helmet.

the health benefits of 'normal people cycling in their everyday clothes' yadayadda are pretty minimal.

Maybe. But it looks like they are doing something right to me:

[img] [/img]

all the old school lads i ride out with --fellas with racing experience ,greta handling skills--on social rides none of us wear helmets---i am not arguing that you should not , but one of the reasons i like cycling is the freedom to go where you want, wearing whatever you wish, not being forced to wear equipment for 'your' own safety-- no doubt there willl be tales of woe -how a helmet saved so and so --ever had a wasp stuck in it ??

I did lejog with a mate last year. I didn't wear a helmet. He feels he has to and entertained me with helmet related stories from his last lejog. Various insects etc, including one that burrowed into his head and required digging out.

This time helmet head was the main story. He wore stripes into his head. Something very similar to this:

[img] [/img]

& does that obesity graph correlate with rates of cycling?

Problem with these articles is they only look at the only outcome being death with regards to helmets. Personally I don't care what other people do, the reason I wear a helmet is for overall safety and I know wearing a helmet has saved me from what could have been a serious injury, the concussion was bad enough.

& does that obesity graph correlate with rates of cycling?

There certainly seems to be a correlation between active travel and obesity rates:

[img] [/img]

[quote=Spin ]Never mind all the usual arguments for and against helmets that article is wrong headed (pun intended) in so many ways that I don't even know where to start criticizing it.

Go on, why don't you try. Reference to bits of the article would be good, which would of course require that you read it properly. How about starting with this bit:

Yes, it’s a small thing, but enough small things make a difference

[quote=imnotverygood ]

Broodje krokets and Olliebollen! The vast majority of people who ride bikes in Holland are not cyclists in the sense that it is used as a form of exercise, they don’t charge around at aerobic threshold, the pootle along at a similar level of excursion as walking.

Yes. Precisely. An awful lot of people on the internet seem to want to claim that if we had Dutch levels of cycling everyone would be massively more healthy, and yet at the same time ignore the fact that most Dutch cyclists aren't doing any significant cardio-vascular exercise. 'Normal' people don't like to over-exert themselves while going from a to b. The Dutch aren't any different in that respect. So the health benefits of 'normal people cycling in their everyday clothes' yadayadda are pretty minimal.

Plenty of health benefits of walking rather than driving if that's all the exercise they're getting. You don't have to get out of breath and sweating buckets to be exercising.

People going from a to b under their own power is a good thing, whether that's walking, cycling, skateboarding, whatever. Good for their health, good for air quality and city quality of life.

The chances of any kind of injury while city cycling are very low, the chances of it being a head injury where a helmet would make a significant difference are much lower than that. So even if the effect of helmets in discouraging cycling is very low, it will still overwhelm any positive benefits of cycling.

Go on, why don't you try. Reference to bits of the article would be good, which would of course require that you read it properly. How about starting with this bit:

Some crushing sarcasm there which of course adds nothing to the point you are trying to make.

Do you believe, like the writer clearly does that fewer cyclists wearing helmets will encourage others to ride?

Yes, it’s a small thing, but enough small things make a difference

the health benefits of 'normal people cycling in their everyday clothes' yadayadda are pretty minimal.

The chances of any kind of injury while city cycling are very low, the chances of it being a head injury where a helmet would make a significant difference are much lower than that.

Care to guess the only time outside of DH riding I've sustained concussion?

Great George Street, clear road, green light, family of morons, avoid, smack into the back of a stopped van. Luckily my pisspot took the brunt of it and was compressed about as far as it could go. The impact was probably only at about 15mph by the time I had scrubbed my speed but was enough to convince me that I'm better off with a helmet than without.

the chances are still low no one said it was impossible and its unlikely a 15 mph head but would have killed you so it stopped the severity of the injury it,most likely, did not prevent your death so we cannot be certain it made a significant difference.

NB i am not claiming it made no difference jsut saying it probably did not save your life.

Care to guess the only time outside of DH riding I've sustained concussion?

Care to guess the only time I've sustained concussion, in 30 years of riding bikes?

I fell out of a tree.

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

Yes, it’s a small thing, but enough small things make a difference

I am sure there are people out there who do not bike because they think it is too dangerous. I would be surprised though if they based that decision on the proxy measure of helmet wearing. I think it much more likely that they base their decision on what they see on the roads and in the media.

Helmet wearing is a response to a perceived level of risk. If you want to get those people who site risk as a barrier into cycling then it's the risks (actual and perceived) that you need to tackle not the response to those risks.

Helmet wearing is part of the media thing, and part of the perceived risk. Yes, it’s a small thing, but enough small things make a difference.

You don't get how subtle some effects are?

Indeed. Some are so subtle that it's impossible to see them.

...if you're not looking

How would you look for evidence of that effect?

I presumed you were going to tell me, given you're so certain it doesn't exist

I'll take that to mean you don't know! 😉

Depends if you want your once in 100 year freak accident to make you cabbage or not i guess .

Even on my" city "bike i can get up a head of steam that far exceeds that of walking without exerting much effort. Say - on a hill.

In my younger days i never wore a helmet , then i had a scare when a chain snapped on leaving some traffic lights - i went over the bars and hit the ground hard enough to wake up in hospital and under go 6 months of epilepsy tests and came close to having my license suspended on medical grounds.

Another mate lost 6 months memory from a similar low speed freak accident.

Enough for me to wear a helmet. Although im pro choice , it should not be compulsory.

But equally they should not promote the not wearing of a helmet.

One of my best frinds died of a head injury in a shower when she slipped and died

Will this knowledge change your opinion of showering without a lid?

We can trade anecdotes all day but cycling is no more risky than many other activities we would never wear a helmet and much less dangerous [ head injury wise] than many activities - a car for example- where would never wear one.

I am pro choice and i wear it when i think it warrants it. Pootles are helmetless as are some road rides. off road is almost always with a helmet

[quote=Spin ]I'll take that to mean you don't know!

No, and neither do you. Only one of us is certain about whether or not there is an effect...

It certainly isn't me who is certain. I've been posting based on my beliefs which as dear old Bertrand never tired of saying might be wrong.

Yes I realise it's anecdotal, I'm not a complete mug. But my point was that for every person who says wearing a helmet is pointless for x there will be another who can make a claim that it made a difference to the outcome in a similar incident. It's about mitigation rather than prevention, defence in depth if you want to go there. I've sustained more neck injuries at work from wearing a helmet (ducking to avoid things and not clearing them or standing too soon) than I ever did when I didn't wear one but do you honestly think not wearing it would pass any sort of robust risk assessment?

I never claimed the helmet saved my life that day, I went to college and managed to pass an end of module test that afternoon. What it did do was reduce the severity of the injury such that I [i]could[/i] make it to college. In any case I've probably sustained more injuries pootling around over the years than I ever have when riding seriously. Slipped/snapped chains and slips on pedals have ruined more rides than tree hugging ever has. In fact the only other concussion I got was from a stationary swan dive (hung up on a rock trying to turn, the big one round the tree just at the edge of the woods on the French National if anyone is familiar with it).

[quote=squirrelking ]But my point was that for every person who says wearing a helmet is pointless for x there will be another who can make a claim that it made a difference to the outcome in a similar incident.

Well no. For every n people for whom it wouldn't make a difference there is one who has an anecdote. The point is that n is large enough that there only needs to be a very small reduction in cycling due to helmet wearing (small enough that it would be very difficult to measure) for helmet wearing to be detrimental to society as a whole.

In case anybody reads between the lines and thinks I'm claiming something I'm not - I'm not claiming that helmet use is detrimental to society as a whole - I'm not sure, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to be sure that isn't the case.

In case anybody reads between the lines and thinks I'm claiming something I'm not - I'm not claiming that helmet use is detrimental to society as a whole

All this fear of non existant risk is making society worse. Helmets are just one of the symptoms. Stop being such fannies.

Saw a comment on another site regarding legislation of compulsory helmet usage.

It was regarding the irony of having to force those people dumb enough to not want to wear helmets to protect what little grey matter they have.

Is that a comment you agree with? 😕

[quote=obelix opined]Saw a comment on another site regarding legislation of compulsory helmet usage.
It was regarding the irony of having to force those people dumb enough to not want to wear helmets to protect what little grey matter they have.

I know its really true that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid

I wish i was clever enough to have worked this out and then said it so publicly to show my genius

Natural selection. Sounds like a plan obelix

I would be surprised though if they based that decision on the proxy measure of helmet wearing. I think it much more likely that they base their decision on what they see on the roads and in the media.

And part of what they see on the roads is that people [i]can't[/i] cycle in everyday clothes and instead require high-viz, Lycra, special shoes and helmets. It's clearly not something that [i]normal[/i] people do.

And what they see in the media is comments exactly like the one above suggesting that cycling is so incredibly dangerous that it should legally require head protection at all times and anyone who thinks otherwise has a low IQ and is less evolved. 🙄

It was regarding the irony of having to force those people dumb enough to not want to wear helmets to protect what little grey matter they have.

Or made a concious decision based on their own assessment of risk...

[IMG] [/IMG]

And part of what they see on the roads is that people can't cycle in everyday clothes and instead require high-viz, Lycra, special shoes and helmets. It's clearly not something that normal people do.

& you don't have any evidence that it isn't the case. It would be surprising if there wasn't a subconscious effect.

... Not if the helmets are a symptom rather than a cause.

I do 10-15hrs recreational cycling each week without a helmet. A mixture of mtb, road and BMX. If helmets were compulsory I wouldn't.

No amount of middle aged middle class cyclists arguing and sharing tales of injury will change this FACT.

I do 10-15hrs recreational cycling each week without a helmet. A mixture of mtb, road and BMX. If helmets were compulsory I wouldn't.

You'd give up cycling if helmets were made compulsory?

No. but I wouldn't cycle nearly as much.

Might as well buy a motorbike if I had to wear a stupid helmet

You'd give up cycling if helmets were made compulsory?

Actually I wouldn't. I just wouldn't wear one. It's not like I'd get arrested.

Such keyboard hatred. Were you lot slamming your fist on the table while using the other to type?

Just for clarity, I often go lid-less, on-road and off. My comment was merely regarding a post I saw which I found humorous. It's a good skill in life to be able to see humour when it's there, even if it doesn't align with your dogma. Just sayin'.

Starts with an insulting dig- tick
Blames others- tick
Back pedals - tick
Ends with another dig - tick
Sandwiches complete retraction of previously stated position in post - TICK

It's not like I'd get arrested

Yeah right. Like they've nothing better to do.