Gordon Ramsey…Ouch.

OP I wouldn’t worry about it, the stw forum has form for endless helmet wearing arguments going waaaay back to the old style forum 17 years ago and probably before that! Some things don’t change

Isn’t helmet wearing/not wearing a bit like drinking to excess/not drinking or eating to excess/eating normally? I.e. we’re free to make decisions without penalty that may be considered wise/unwise by others.

Does that A&E Nurse above give grief to fatties/piss heads/druggies/Wendy ball players etc on the basis that their ‘situations’ are the results of their own making? Unlikely methinks.

My other half did ten years as an a & e nurse and she goes savage on people not wearing a helmet whilst cycling, she got fed up of patching people up where the helmet would have saved a lot of damage.

I know an A&E consultant who has a slightly odd perspective on risk.  The things he does all the time are OK (drive cars, rock climb, drink red wine, lots of red wine), but cycling and rugby are too dangerous and a burden on the NHS.

For those that don’t think you need to wear a helmet when doing anything else (running, driving etc,.) and dismiss it as silly, that is how some of us feel about wearing one when cycling – we don’t see the need for it.

Wear a helmet when cycling if you want but don’t dismiss your own inconsistency in not wearing one at any other time where risks are similar.

Life is full of risks, the important risks have legislation for – eg wearing seatbelts in a car.

If there isn’t a law/rule then there might be guidance – eg using ladders.

If none of the above then it’s entirely up to the individual ie bike helmets. I can offer an opinion but that’s it hence this thread going to 10pages then a mod closing it.

Comparing helmet wearing on a bike to a when driving or running is silly.  In a car there’s both a mandatory seatbelt law along with tens of safety systems to protect you in the event of a crash or situation you can’t react quickly to. In running, you’re moving slowly enough, that when you start to trip and fall, you usually have time to react and get your hands out to stop you hitting your head. in cycling, you’re often moving too quickly and fall so suddenly and completely that your head (even if it’s not the first thing to do so) hits the ground or an object at speed.

If you must equate it to driving, it’s much more akin to not wearing a seatbelt than it is to not wearing a helmet.  There was a time when it wasn’t mandated…would you go back?

I know an A&E consultant who has a slightly odd perspective

I know plenty. Being a doctor doesn’t guarantee rationality.

Comparing helmet wearing on a bike to a when driving or running is silly

Thanks for proving the point I made about peoples inconsistency and inability to see actual risk.

The problem with ‘the helmet debate’ is that it drowns out everything else.  Some people have even commented that they came here to find out what happened but were disappointed to find it’s a helmet debate.  That’s not really surprising since the entire story is that ‘the helmet saved my life’.  Literally, that’s the only information we get from the original story.

Helmets should be point 17 on road safety discussions.  Instead they are point 1 every **** time.

I too would like to know how Gordon Ramsay crashed.  I’d like to know what he was riding, where he was riding, whether he hit or was hit by a car, what could be done to prevent it next time, etc.  Instead I get, ‘always wear a helmet’. It’s pathetic.

Things are gradually changing though.  10 years ago very few on here would be entertaining the idea of anyone not wearing a helmet for any type of ride. Me included.

I think many years of these debates have brought people round to the idea that maybe there are more important things to worry about.  The irony of trying to convince people of that means that we are constantly talking about helmets instead of any of the 16 other points we should be talking about before we get round to the question of PPE.

And by the way, saying, ‘It’s up to you but you’re an idiot if you don’t’ is not ‘leaving it up to the individual’ .  You are encouraging the views of the victim blamers everywhere who will blame you if you are on a bike regardless.  Stop trying to appease the aggressive **** who don’t even see you as being fully human.  It’s never going to happen.

That’s not really surprising since the entire story is that ‘the helmet saved my life’. Literally, that’s the only information we get from the original story.

It really isn’t. The story is that a celebrity chef was hurt in a crash while cycling, and has suggested people should wear helmets as he feels it protected him.

Literally everything else is fluff and nonsense spouted by folks on both sides of the helmet debate, trying to out froth each other as these threads usually do.

It really isn’t. The story is that a celebrity chef was hurt in a crash while cycling, and has suggested people should wear helmets as he feels it protected him.

Guess you missed the actually headline where it is a little more than ‘suggested’ and as ‘he feels’.  Lucky to be alive thanks to helmet is how I read it.

“Gordon Ramsay says he’s ‘lucky to be alive’ after bike accident – and thanks his helmet”

Literally everything else is fluff and nonsense spouted by folks on both sides of the helmet debate, trying to out froth each other as these threads usually do.

Curious to know what you mean by ‘literally everything else’.

I think the literally everything else in terms of crashes and injuries involving bikes, particularly bikes on the road, is the important part and the effectiveness of helmets is a distraction.

we are constantly talking about helmets

Don’t think that’s true. I can’t be bothered to do the data analysis but I remember much more discussion about LTNs, floating bus islands, streetscapes etc on here than helmets. I have the vague impression that it’s been ages since there’s been a good old traditional Internet punchup about helmets on here. Or maybe I’ve just been ignoring the “constant” helmet threads, I don’t know. If so, they’re apparently easy to miss.

nonsense spouted by folks on both sides of the helmet debate, trying to out froth each other

A full face helmet can protect you from froth 😉

Argh, not the “I survived a crash therefore everyone MUST wear a helmet” thing again, **** off.

Why would you not wear a helmet? Unless you are a helmet.

No wonder people hate cyclists. Even some cyclists hate other ‘wrong’ cyclists. All of you, get over yourselves.

Thanks for proving the point I made about peoples inconsistency and inability to see actual risk.

Help me see it, go on…use small words.

Literally, that’s the only information we get from the original story.

Well, that and the image of a shattered helmet…pretty compelling.  No matter what else happened, had the helmet not been there, there would have been some head damage…right?

the image of a shattered helmet…pretty compelling

I’d say there’s a bit more to it than a simplistic view than that – which is pretty much the flaw in the arguments of compulsion/”you’re a helmet if you don’t” etc.

No matter what else happened, had the helmet not been there, there would have been some head damage…right?

Maybe, maybe not.  I’ve seen some people taking some incredible hits to the head and not die or even have any serious injury (beyond concussion which is obviously a very serious injury but not necessarily something a helmet is going to mitigate but again, it’s complicated).

Most memorable one was a mate deciding he wanted a piggyback to cross the road.  He jumped on mate 2’s back who then lost his balance.  Started running forward to try to regain balance and then finally lost it as he got to the pavement.  Mate 1 goes headfirst into the corner of the kerb.  Sickening thud.  Thought he was dead. But he got up and seemed fine.  Couldn’t remember much of the rest of the night though.

Had he been on a bike and gone headfirst into the kerb in the same way I’m sure pictures of the smashed helmet and stories about how the helmet saved his life would have abounded.

A smashed helmet does not mean that had it not been there there would have been a smashed head instead.  If it did none of us would have survived childhood.

But again, what is this need to make the discussion about the effectiveness of helmets?

In the grand scheme of safety on a bicycle it is irrelevant.

No wonder people hate cyclists. Even some cyclists hate other ‘wrong’ cyclists. All of you, get over yourselves.

Why do I need to get over myself if I disagree with something another person who rides a bike says?

And note disagree with rather than hate.  I don’t hate someone because they choose to wear a helmet when cycling, get over yourself.

Why do I need to get over myself if I disagree with something another person who rides a bike says?

Because this tit-for-tat silly bickering is bloody stupid. Take a look at yourselves.

Because this tit-for-tat silly bickering is bloody stupid. Take a look at yourselves.

I am quite happy with it but thanks Dad.

I am quite happy with it but thanks Dad.

Crack on then – make your voice heard. I’m glad that you appreciate I am taking a mature view of this nonsense.

In a fight between cyclists, is a helmet likely to be a help or a hindrance?

I’ll place bets on anyone wearing a full-face.

TBH this thread puts me in mind of that video of 2 hipsters “fighting” in the road that went viral a while ago. I can just picture two groups shaking mirrors at each other: “you look at yourself!” “no YOU look at yourself!”  🤣

Maybe, maybe not.  I’ve seen some people taking some incredible hits to the head and not die or even have any serious injury (beyond concussion which is obviously a very serious injury but not necessarily something a helmet is going to mitigate but again, it’s complicated).

So you’re agreed that a helmet might help in some situations?  In which situations does a helmet not help?  And don’t trot out the old trope of disincentivising people.  Are we going to go to rotational injuries as that’s even more tenuous?  BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.

I genuinely don’t care if you wear a helmet –  your head, your choice, but just like prostheletising,  you shouldn’t be going around and telling others that helmets don’t help, when clearly, in some situations, they do.

Make your own choice, but keep it as your choice and be happy with that, especially in the face of evidence which supports effectiveness, even if only in some scenarios.

I’ve been knocked off my bike twice by ****ts in cars, and once faceplanted on the MTB, all three times needing hospital treatment, and three new helmets. Concussed on one of those occassions when hit by a car even wearing a helmet (local journeym 3 mins from home in the village high street going to meet my son from the station).

I have never been hospitalized or had a head injury, or even a close call, walking to the pub or the shops (but fairly regularly get close passed by ****ts in cars when on the bike)

I know I am an N of 1 in my very own dataset, but I’ll keep on wearing a helmet cos I don’t want my wife and kids spoonfeeding me cos I was too lazy to put one on when I’m out on the bike

Yes other interventions might make cycling safer on a bigger scale, but until that happens on a reliable basis I’m looking after #1

So you’re agreed that a helmet might help in some situations?  In which situations does a helmet not help?  And don’t trot out the old trope of disincentivising people.  Are we going to go to rotational injuries as that’s even more tenuous?  BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.

OK, so don’t put forward any arguments you don’t like is what you are saying?

I’m sure if we wore helmets all the time (not just on bikes) we could reduce the number of head injuries.  However, for almost all activities we accept that people don’t wear helmets.

Cycling is different in that it’s not just become socially acceptable to wear a helmet but socially expected with people going so far as to suggest that if you don’t wear a helmet you shouldn’t expect any help (said by someone on the previous page, I think).

Helmet compulsion reduces the numbers who cycle.  Promoting the idea that cycling is so dangerous that using a helmet is a no-brainer also reduces the number of people who cycle.

I genuinely don’t care if you wear a helmet –  your head, your choice, but just like prostheletising,  you shouldn’t be going around and telling others that helmets don’t help, when clearly, in some situations, they do

Cycling is a common every day activity.  Wearing a helmet would make it safer in exactly the same way that wearing a helmet for all your everyday activities would make it safer.

Why are you fixated on persuading people that cycling is so much more dangerous than other everyday activities that they should always wear a helmet?

Whereas I have been knocked off twice and never hit my head (second one I was in hospital for a couple of nights).

I did however bang my head on a doorway the other day so based on that I should start wearing a helmet around the house but no need to on my bike.

This limited/made up risk stuff is great isn’t it.

Two massively tedious things, together at last! Great thread.

This limited/made up risk stuff is great isn’t it.

But did you get hospitalized banging your head in the door frame?

It’s not made up risk if it has happened……it is actual events. And it’s about consequences – higher risk of higher consequences on a bike

But did you get hospitalized banging your head in the door frame?

That is irrelevant.  The pertinent bit was whether I hit my head or not.

As for higher risks or higher consequences can you show me the table of activities you have with the risk and likelihood so I can see where cycling falls?

As for higher risks or higher consequences can you show me the table of activities you have with the risk and likelihood so I can see where cycling falls?

But I thought you’d already carried out a risk assessment & decided you don’t need a helmet. What data did you use?

If you are not wearing a helmet then that sugests to me that you’re fine with no-one stopping to help if you do have an accident and are injured – otherwise you’d be doing the most that you can to minimise any injuries in case you did need help.

Sort of like climbing up Everest without oxygen and expecting that someone will come and rescue you if it all goes wrong…

If you are not wearing a helmet then that sugests to me that you’re fine with no-one stopping to help if you do have an accident and are injured – otherwise you’d be doing the most that you can to minimise any injuries in case you did need help.

Old people are particularly at risk of head injuries from falls.

Presumably if you found an old person in the street with a head wound you would just step over them because they should have realised they were at greater risk and worn a helmet?

It’s not about risks but consequences.  Bang your head on a door frame (and my house has a few candidates for just that) and the worst case is likely a sore front or top of head for a while, maybe a barely scraped scalp for those with a little less hair.  Fall off a bike at even modest speeds and you can hit virtually any part of the skull with a good deal more force than the door frame incident.  I’m against legal compulsion regarding helmets but wearing one falls into the category of logically compelling.

BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.

Except that’s one thing that bike helmets have *virtually* no effect on.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32932191/

There are shit loads more studies if you can be bothered to look, plus documentation from the manufacturers about their products minimal effectiveness at preventing concussions…

Fall off a bike at even modest speeds and you can hit virtually any part of the skull with a good deal more force than the door frame incident.

And if you fall down the stairs?

The number of head injuries that occur in the home suggests there are at least some risks that are greater than bumping your head on a doorframe.

It’s not about risks but consequences

I had one friend and one acquaintance killed whilst cycling, both being run over. Consequence would seem to suggest not cycling on the road at all.

mertFree Member
BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.
Except that’s one thing that bike helmets have *virtually* no effect on.

From a 2021 report based on data collected over 30y.  It included none of the newer helmets (MIPS/WaveCell) which are specifically designed to try and help with concussion based largely off the reports from 1999/2004/2016 and, yes 2021.  See, I could be “bothered” –  could you be bothered to actually look into the data?

That is irrelevant.  The pertinent bit was whether I hit my head or not.

The pertinent bit is velocity.  The chance of significant traumatic brain injury increases significantly with the velocity of impact and how that impact is transmitted.  When falling from standing to a flat prone position, a fall (2.3m/s) is almost 80% worse than a trip (4m/) and a fall from height (~9m/s) is almost 300% worse than a trip.  A cyclist doing 30kph is travelling at ~8.5m/s which is equivalent to a fall from height if the fall from the bike is sudden.  THIS is why it has more risk.  The likelihood of falling from the bike  may be only slightly higher than walking, but the consequences of doing so are much higher due to the velocity of the impact.