“no SPD shoes” = “not the properly attired cyclist.”

WHAT! 😉

I will continue to feel entirely free to assess my own level of risk, ta.

I wear a helmet when I consider myself at a substantial risk of falling off and whacking my head. When my gnarl is adjusted to the maxx (or even close to it) I wear the helmet. Yesterday, despite it being rather warm, I wore a helmet because I was caning down steep and brokn up roads on my racer at 45mph. Friday I wore a helmet because I was riding off-road as fast as I know how to.

If I’m riding my cargo bike 10 minutes to the grocers I probably won’t bother, being as how I’m averaging about 6mph on a gigantic bike which it is physically impossible to go over the bars of.

Done like this, cycling is no riskier than walking, or having a shower. If you wouldn’t wear a lid while walking there is no sane reason to do it while pottering on the bike. 🙂

(While assessing these risk I am carrying £1million of 3rd party insurance, private health insurance and half a million of life cover and have no dependents, by the way).

Where’s Smee when you need him?

Or the people who pedal on the arches of their feet, toes poking out like Charlie Chaplin. Totally uncool!!

I am just waiting and waiting for TJ to come on the air.
*fingers crossed*

[chuckles at Spongebob]

I’m surprised at the judge’s ruling.

I accept the argument that wearing a helmet may have reduced the injuries, but IMO that does not mean the cyclist was irresponsible by going helmet-less, and should lose compensation. Taking the argument further, perhaps cyclists will be entirely blamed for their injuries, because they can all be avoided by driving their car instead?

It’s possible that, as in AUS, if we are legally forced to wear helmets we’ll think twice about road cycling*. But for sure, rulings like this will put people off.

*It’s debatable whether the AUS data proves that the helmet law caused the reduction in cycling. It was declining anyway I think, and you have to allow for the negative impact of the media highlighting cycling injuries.

BTW. I always wear one.

Glenp – good example of why people should use reference links…i’d be interested in reading the source of that statistic.

Was a link on a previous thread leading to a very good questionnaire with this and other statistics.

I think a big problem with these debates is that they make cycling sound far more dangerous than it actually is. To me, active safety is far better than passive – the idea of riding in traffic with a helmet and an iPod, for example, is just ludicrous. Paying attention to what is coming up behind you is far more important than having a little extra protection on your head just in case.

perks – Member

btw – i don’t want to make anyone – all I asked was WHY wouldn’t you – there have so far been no good reasons why not.

the reasons re the collective behaviour aren’t necessarily relevent to individual cyclists.

Incidently I hate the idea of nanny state, I’m honestly not arguing the compulsion point.

I think that’s the relevant distinction here. Wearing a helmet is always to be encouraged, most of the time it will only add (a little) to your safety.

Helmet compulsion is a very different thing though. The very debate over helmet compulsion is counter productive to us as cyclists. Surely I can’t be the only one to have noticed the growing culture of resentment towards unhelmeted cyclists? There is an ever more prevalent attitude in the press and in public reaction that a cyclist without a helmet almost ‘had it coming’, which is clearly ridiculous in instances where the driver was to blame for the accident, and about as casually distasteful as suggesting that a girl in short skirt is ‘asking for it’. I don’t even buy the ‘contributory negligence’ argument, as I believe the greater burden of responsibility should lie with the party that has potential to do the most harm; which is nearly always the motorist.

The issue that really needs addressing (but isn’t being addressed) is to get drivers to treat cyclists (and in fact,other road users) with more courtesy, care and respect*. Helmet use is good advice, but compulsion on anything should always be the last resort.

*I know this cuts both ways – don’t get me started on cyclists who run red lights 😡

>trailbreak-martin

Thumbs up.

perks, I’m with you, especially on the roads in Bristol you’ll only last a short while if you don’t

Are you serious? So does that mean that you don’t see people riding without helmets in Bristol as they’ve all been eliminated by natural selection? If it’s really that bad, how does a little lump of polystyrene help so much?

Or is it just possible you may be exaggerating a tad?

“I accept the argument that wearing a helmet may have reduced the injuries, but IMO that does not mean the cyclist was irresponsible by going helmet-less, and should lose compensation. “

You only lose compensation for the injuries that would have been prevented.

It is really interesting how the research has been used to justify behaviour…

just been reading all the articles – the motivations FOR wearing a lid – easy – low speed collisions, minor injury/medium injury prevention, of course sensible off road…

the reasons for not are all based on collective responses – i.e. the reponses of external factors – e.g. the drivers being less careful..

HOWEVER – by what degree do you deal with that? my argument is that drivers being a little less careful and therefore (very slightly) increasing the risk of the major incident is a lot better than the status quo with the massive increase in possible damage during minor incidents. That seems to me an easy equation.

Furthermore – the collective response will change in due course – there was almost certainly a similar response when motorcycle helmets weren’t mandatory – but of course over time, if everyone felt they should wear a lid then that argument would start to dissapear. The “dip” in the number of cyclists would be a small price to pay for a general absolute reduction in casualties.

Collective response for this sort of thing would indeed take a while to change, granted, but it shouldn’t be a reason for not balancing the equation properly – look at smoking – it hasn’t been banned (quite rightly) but it is becoming socially unacceptable over time and attitudes have changed. The similarity there is that many of the arguments against compulsion will actually dissapear if the action was to remove this “risk taking” issue by education – i.e. massively promote helmet wearing…this would take a while but would work in the same way therfore leaving us with only one argument i.e. reduction in minor/medium injuries = good thing!

an improperly attired cyclist, last month.

For myself, I believe that a lot of pro-helmet compulsion is about transfering blame to others and reducing other people’s (when I write that what I really mean is driver’s) perceived risk without actually doing anything about it at all by what trailbreak-martin quite rightly states is the party with the most potential to do harm – but then to do so otherwise obviously would restrict driver’s “rights”.

seriously – what is wrong with wearing a lid? I’ve always worn one, modern designs are barely noticable

Always? Including walking down the street, and going up and down the stairs at home? Given it’s so barely noticeable, if not, why not, noting that you’re at more risk of head injury which a helmet would prevent doing either of those activities than cycling?

I walk with my hands in my pockets quite often, maybe I should be wearing a helmet… 😛

Honestly think these debates on compulsory helmet wearing are heading in the wrong direction, never see people talking on the phone whilst driving now do you!? Nice to hear the government are wasting money soon to findout if helmets really are safe, that not already been covered by others…?!

In NZ and Canada I saw people riding without helmets and no one was stopping them, probably as the authorities have better things to do…

The debate should be about changing drivers attitudes to cyclists, was interested to hear the final comment about making the driver more responsible…

my argument is that drivers being a little less careful and therefore (very slightly) increasing the risk of the major incident is a lot better than the status quo with the massive increase in possible damage during minor incidents. That seems to me an easy equation.

I’m not convinced you’re relative assessment of the risks is that good – the drivers being less careful has potential to do a lot more harm than the very small amount of injuries helmets save.

can we stop with the “you should waer a helmet as a pedestrian” argument.

I’m neither clumsy nor stupid, it is poor use of statistics that leads to those statements – i wear the lid because of unavoidable situations e.g. another cyclist smashing into me, or pedestrian walking out in front of me etc. etc. not because I might be in danger by cycling per se…

that’s the important difference and is relevent to the pedestrian lid/cycle lid argument…context!

aracer – yeah – agreed, depends on the research, we should wait for the findings…in the mean time, my personal experience of commuting and the most frequent types of “near miss” leads me to the conclusion that I am right to wear a helmet.

can we stop with the “you should waer a helmet as a pedestrian” argument.

OK, just as long as we can agree that comparisons with seatbelts or motorcycle helmets are equally spurious.

I love how people are so selfish, Nanny state this, Freedom of choice that.

what about the cost of the ambulance / police when they pick your brains up off the hillside. what about the mental stability of your mates who shouldn’t have egged you on to go down the bit you weren’t comfy with but did anyway and saw you smash your head in on a rock and now have to live with seeing you disabled. what about the car driver who shouldn’t have knocked you off but at least it was minor injury not death?

but it doesn’t matter because at least YOU do what YOU want, balls to everyone else.

I by the way never tend to wear one when I pop to the shops but always do when I go off road.

if it is made compulsory, they should factor in wearing one that isn’t properly adjusted is classed as not wearing one, just like not doing the strap on your motorbike helmet is classed as not wearing one. i’m sick of seeing kids with them dangelling off the back of their heads leaving the front of their heads uncovered and producing more of a choking hazard than anything else. if you are going to wear one, wear one properly

can we stop with the “you should waer a helmet as a pedestrian” argument.

I’m neither clumsy nor stupid, it is poor use of statistics that leads to those statements
Do you know how tiny a number it is the amount of head injuries bicycle helmets actually save? Do you know how the head injuries of peds in those stats are caused, and how the head injuries of cyclists are? It’s only your poor perception of relative risk that leads you to think it’s a poor use of statistics.

thepodge – Member

I love how people are so selfish, Nanny state this, Freedom of choice that.

what about the cost of the ambulance / police when they pick your brains up off the hillside. what about the mental stability of your mates who shouldn’t have egged you on to go down the bit you weren’t comfy with but did anyway and saw you smash your head in on a rock and now have to live with seeing you disabled. what about the car driver who shouldn’t have knocked you off but at least it was minor injury not death?

but it doesn’t matter because at least YOU do what YOU want, balls to everyone else.

I by the way never tend to wear one when I pop to the shops but always do when I go off road.

So you like to exercise freedom of choice then…

what about the car driver who shouldn’t have knocked you off but at least it was minor injury not death?

Are you really suggesting we should have sympathy for them? 😯

Get the kit or look like a twit!

Hmmmmm………… I’ll still be wearing my helmet after I have cracked 2 of them and several of my friends have had off’s on their bikes and smashed theirs to pieces – one hitting a woman who stepped out infront of them – don’t forget about the pedestrians who only uses their ears instead of their eyes – thats one situation where a helmet prevents brain inujuries (low velocity impacts !)

The point about the case which I presume sparked the debate:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece

is that the Judge said this:

“Mr Justice Griffith Williams accepted Smith’s case that he was close to the centre of the road, preparing to turn right into a driveway, when the motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed in the same direction, tried to overtake him on the offside.

However, Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet. The judge is the first to express sympathy for the view that this omission put the cyclist at fault and made him partly responsible for his own brain damage.

“There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he ruled. Subject to limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault””

Despite the fact that:

“Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph and the judge therefore concluded that wearing a helmet would not have made any difference.”

The consequence of which is/could be:

“But by establishing the principle of “contributory negligence” in cases involving helmetless cyclists, the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers.”

Given that wearing a helmet is not law in the UK, it seems odd of the judge to mention it at all, never mind the two other points that a) the accident was wholly the motorbiker’s fault and b) a helmet would have made no difference at all to the injuries sustained.

The next logical step is that pedestrians should also wear helmets and padding, or they would be held partly responsible for any injuries they sustain from a car deliberately mounting the pavement to knock them down.

I normally wear a helmet myself but don’t agree it should be either compulsory or used an excuse to reduce damages when a cyclist behaving correctly is hit by someone who was wholly at fault, as in this case.

Do ambulances collecting thepodge from outside the shops cost less? 😯

wow – it gets better…

the articles Ive been reading are quite flawed in terms of individual v group benefits (even they admit it as a caveat to how they choose which groups to study). This is because you can never get an “all things considered” conclusion.

i.e. all the STW massive, who are (for the sake of argument) skilled cyclists with a view to safety in the appropriate situations – added risks aside (e.g. skipping lights) would all BENEFIT from wearing a helmet.

when you start trying to create statistics for the whole population it gets really difficult – think of all the sub groups within cycling. the only real problem with this is the “driver attitude” thing – and even that massively depends on the type of cyclist – e.g. child/youth/woman (yes, this has been reported – it is better to have long blonde hair apparently)/old person etc. etc.

I can’t find a good reference that takes all this into account properly – also – the statistics in terms of head injury treatment are similarly flawed – this is massively due to the fact that hardly any of the studies are recent enough…helmet technology is one issue, but more importantly it is simple “signal to noise” in the statistics – i.e. not enough helmet wearers of ALL the different TYPES of cyclist have been admitted to hospital with head injuries yet…

so what? well, if you took this alone, actually the conclusion might be that older, skilled riders are so unlikely to be involved in a major accident that they may as well use a helmet for the undoubted benefits to low speed injuries. OR…we simply don’t know because nothing as yet is PROPERLY comparable – kids are always going to take risks, helmet or no helmet. We need reasonable studies using modern helmets (think how much modern cycle helmets have changed compared with motorcycle helmets over the last 20 years)…

ok. bored now.

In nearly every argument that has been for Helmet use the biggest reason for wearing one is in the event that your are hit or knocked off by someone else. On that basis and seeing the pic of the “improperly attired cyclist” above surely Hi-Vis jackets are better protection and should these be made compulsary, as your more likely to be seen. How many every-time helmet wearers wear Hi-Vis?

bleh. anyone here got a qualification in statistics?

So you like to exercise freedom of choice then…

on the mountain bike yes, on the motorbike I do as i’m told, if it becomes law to use one on my mountain bike I will. I’ve never thought “those freedom stealing buggers” when i put on my motorbike helmet.

Are you really suggesting we should have sympathy for them? [8O]

accidents happen, not every car driver purposefully knocks some one off.

Any problem, therefore on the flip side, that he doesn’t wear a helmet – he’s bothered to get a high vis jacket – poss “borrowed” from work? I agree high vis jackets are good but in summer, in the day – any advantage?

actuall – not bored – this is a great statement from:

Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study

Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. JAMA, 1996 Dec 25;276(24):1968-73

Nobody doubts that helmets can prevent minor head wounds, but these are not injuries of concern.

Do ambulances collecting thepodge from outside the shops cost less? [8O]

i never said i was perfect

Hi vis jacket would have made no difference in the case mentioned above, as the motorbike clearly saw the cyclist and decided to overtake where it was unsafe to do so.

ho ho ho

i never said i was perfect

You didn’t, but you’d need to be to get away with that kind of hysterical clither. 😉

actually – s0d the forum – you should all look at the cited articles – search back through the references – it is really really bad in terms of trying to get a control group to base a study on.

moreover – some of the studies in australia actually involved including the soft “racer” hairnet type

helmet

in the study!!! the reviewer comments are interesting.

on this basis i shall continue to wear a lid. By choice. you must do what you think is best, of course 😉