Helmets – possibly the last word?

Risk compensation is not concious.

Why when it has been demonstrated in so many other similar places should cycling be exempt? What is so unique about cycling that a well known psychological phenomenon does not occur?

Not exercising does not automatically put you in the queue for CHD! A sedentary lifestyle, 40 fags and 20g of sat fat a day may do.

Completely agree.
This is the argument for anti-compulsion. Its a flawed argument.
Excercise certainly assists in the bad to good bloood fat ratio (LDL vs HDL) which correlates strongly with CV disease.
As you point out there are other factors as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418079

Gotta love the abbreviation for that journal:

Risk Anal.

😆

Interesting paper.
I’ll counter that tonight.
The sun is out and the bike beckons. 😀
Its a glorious day in Wales.

you are absolutely wrong on risk compensation.

It occurs commonly and is well demonstrated.
That’s not what your man in the article says.

I am sure that risk compensations happens but so does the reverse at least in my experience. I nearly always wear a helmet but just occasionally have been going for a few blasts sans chapeau. I actually push harder without a lid but with a much more elevated sense of what is happening – feels purer and more exciting. But having said that, I have cracked enough helmets to know that most rides will be avec chapeau!!

For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet. The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. They thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.

TJ I am disappointed seriously. Surely anybody let alone a health professional can see how illogical their conclusions are from the results they report.
The non-helmet wearing cyclists did not alter their speed nor exhibit any alteration in stress when made to wear helmets.
How does this support your argument exactly – Or did you just read the last sentence?
This suggests that if helmet compulsion took place then cyclist risk behavior wouldn’t change.
I think you’ve defeated your own argument! 😆

When people accept that whenever you take your bike out you also take your helmet it becomes normal.

Nope, never worn one, don’t own one. Don’t wanna wear one

Thanks

So TJ. As a medical professional, tell me what the problem is with this statement.
Some neurologists take the view
that a helmet may increase the risk of a rotational type injury to the brain because the
diameter of the head is effectively increased.

(from the silk’s paper, but I think it is lifted from that well known neutral website cyclinghelmets.org)

After reading all that I think I’ll leave my helmet at home more often.

A good summary this piece.

I wear a helmet off road and on the road bike but there’s no way I’d want to be compelled to wear one when travelling about in normal clothes – frequently go without on the Brompton.

The para I thought was interesting was:

The risks are comparable to those faced by pedestrians yet nobody seriously suggests that pedestrians should wear helmets. What of the cyclist who crosses a shared cycle/pedestrian crossing alongside a pedestrian when both are run down by a motorist who jumps the lights?

This thread is no less boring than the thousand or so that have gone before it.

TJ, stop trolling. It’s dull.

Not meant as a troll – I seriously thought the piece was worth bringing to people attention as it was a nicely written summary.

I have not argued with folk on here about it.

Yes TJ and worth posting – thank you. Not a troll at all. And best thing is the conclusion which is perfect for all these arguments:

It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with the person or persons responsible for the collision.

Well I found it intesting, TJ, and won’t acuse you of trolling, just this once. 😉

And best thing is the conclusion which is perfect for will never come with all these arguments, as TJ will continue to argue ad infinitum

FTFY.

Oi

I ain’t been arguing despite two or three people trying to get me to do so – apart from with you of course CFH 🙂

On this thread, perhaps, TJ, but on the myriad others it’s rather boring.

We know your opinion. Others disagree. We know their opinion. Continued threads, as highlighted earlier with the sheer number, don’t add anything to it. Just the same argument (Even if you weren’t, for once, actually arguing!) going round in circles again.

two or three people

I know I put a bit of weight on through the winter but I find that comment offensive.

Isn’t the simple point that if I smash my head on the tarmac I’d rather do so wearing a helmet?

I can’t believe people are still wallowing in the same hackneyed old arguments when there’s daffodils to discuss!

No, Damos, it’s the fact that you you are more likely to get hit by a car and smash your head on the tarmac if you are wearing a helmet (according to a Bath uninversity study°.

Here we go again, or you go, I’m out.

No, Damos, it’s the fact that you you are more likely to get hit by a car and smash your head on the tarmac if you are wearing a helmet (according to a Bath uninversity study°.

Maybe they found a correlation between helmet use and crashes – doesn’t mean helmet use causes crashes, or indeed that I am more likely to be hit by a car if I’m wearing a helmet.

Oh, go on then. The study showed drivers take less care around cyclists that wear helmets so you’re more likely to be involved in a collision.

On the topic of risk compensation, there is always the possibility that being more relaxed because you believe conciously or unconciously you’re more protected, means you’re more relaxed and less rigid on the bike which in turn allows you to have more control on the bike? GO on any skills training course and it’s all about positioning and being able to shift your weight around, difficult if you’ve got a death grip on the bars and your joints are all locked solid.

Just saying like……no evidence…..purely anecdotal self experience.

One final thought, would risk compensation come into to it if you’ve always worn a helmet? As an adult I’ve worm a helmet since being at university in the late eighties, fantastic lump of polystyrene with a lycra cover. Stopped me skinning the back of may head when i fell off, didn’t do much to stop me breaking my elbow though…..

Also on the subject of risk compensation….

Risk compensation is about how the perception of safety encourages people to take greater risks.

So tell me how is it that people who don’t wear helmets because they think ‘cycling is safe’ take fewer risks than people who think cycling is dangerous and therefore wear a helmet. The helmet may alter someone’s perceptions but surely not to the extent that they feel safer than the helmet-less who appear think that they are in no danger at all.

Bath uninversity study

One bloke rding his bike. It is hardly the most rigourous study you can think of. He also ‘demonstrated’ that riding in primary led to closer passes… one for TJ to answer.

so you’re more likely to be involved in a collision.

& he didn’t prove that either.. That is something that people infer from his results.

You can sometimes learn more from personal experimentation than statistics.

If you really want to be safe then forget the helmet and try this combination of things that from experience (mine and Madame’s) result in drivers taking more care around cyclists:

Fit a baby seat with a doll in it, fit one of those lolipop things and wide lugage, ride erratically, wobble lots, ride in the middle of the lane and only pull in a bit when cars get close.

An interesting read TJ.
Given the evidence, along with my injury experience…..

I shall continue to wear my helmet.

SB

Fit a baby seat with a doll in it, fit one of those lolipop things and wide lugage, ride erratically, wobble lots, ride in the middle of the lane and only pull in a bit when cars get close.

As predicted by the Theory of BIG.

http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/Big.html

BIG panniers and BIG BRIGHT JACKET works for me. I also use a mirror so I can see close overtakes before they happen. I rarely get uncomfrtably close overtakes. When I do see one coming I have space to move left as I’m usually at least 4 feet from the kerb.

I think the worst thing that can happen from these debates, is that regular cyclists get discouraged from cycling because it increases their perception of danger.

And that’s all it will do. Some people will wear helmets, some won’t and that’s their choice but the more drawn out discussions some people see around safety equipment, the more they will begin to wonder if it’s worth riding a bike at all.

There is no overwhelming evidence one way or the other about whether helmets save lives, improve safety or not so there’s clearly not much in it. The sooner the debate is dropped the better, people have the choice and it should remain that way.

And best thing is the conclusion which is perfect for all these arguments

The conclusion is an argument. It’s not a summary of what proceeds it. It’s a normative statement based on the author’s pre-existing preferences.

I think the worst thing that can happen from these debates, is that regular cyclists get discouraged from cycling because it increases their perception of danger.

And that’s all it will do. Some people will wear helmets, some won’t and that’s their choice but the more drawn out discussions some people see around safety equipment, the more they will begin to wonder if it’s worth riding a bike at all.

There is no overwhelming evidence one way or the other about whether helmets save lives, improve safety or not so there’s clearly not much in it. The sooner the debate is dropped the better, people have the choice and it should remain that way.

Samuri has broken the argument. End of thread and applause for a genius.

If they made helmets compulsory in Britain would we save more people from head injuries, than we would lose from people quitting cycling and dying of cardiovascular disease?

Are there really people who would never cycle again just because helmetage was compulsory?

I expect what would actually happen, because it’s what always happens in this daft country, is that a there will be a minority who make a massive fuss about it, which very quickly dies down to a general apathy, then after they realise nobody’s paying attention to their stropping we’ll all just buy helmets and get on with our lives …

joao – thats the experience from everywhere where helmet have been made compulsory – massive drops in cycling and thus the benefits of good health from cycling and no decrease in head injuries.

The estimate is 10 lives at best would be saved from head injuries and 200 lost from diseases of inactivity

Links to the research are here and some discussion.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688

I doubt my neigbour would ever get on a bike to go to work again, helmet hair being incompatible with her job. Australien evidence

massive drops in cycling and thus the benefits of good health from cycling and no decrease in head injuries.

Its a guess though innit just a guess perhaps they dont cycle but take up jogging or swimming.

If you crash your head is better protected in a helmet.
TJ why bother very few on here are pro compulsion
You always focus on road stuff but most folk on here are MTB’ers and ride off road.

Amazing. TJ finds a note drafted by counsel where the “last word” is:

It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not
wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with
the person or persons responsible for the collision.

bwahahaahahah. oh the irony.

A typical counsel styled summary of a load of stuff we already knew. 🙂

Not just about head Injury decrease vs CVD increase is it tho hugor? Crash helmets for drivers and pedestrians would definitely save lives with afaik no CVD increase, u will however piss off a lot of people. There’s dispute over the usefulness of 1″ of polystyrene vs tons of cars/trucks so why the push for compulsion? You’d be on safer ground arguing compulsion for XC riding, unenforceable tho. (And I’d still be anti that