I didn’t wear one when going to the shops for a bit, but then my commuter started having a lot of failures and though the riding wasn’t gnarr in the sligtest, I kept having worries about when things would go pop so started to wear one all the time on the bike (and eventually got a new commuter).

But I don’t wear one when climbing step ladders. And I don’t think my helmet use is scientific.

Just spent a week cycling around Holland … I’m surprised that anyone would have a problem with them.

You’ve just spent a week cycling around Holland where no-one wears a helmet, and your conclusion is that everyone should wear helmets?

Isn’t the logical conclusion that helmets aren’t necessary for city riding?

Just because a risk is trivial doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering

It kind of does mean exactly that, doesn’t it?

no, from a H&S/risk assessment point of view it’s still a risk, all cycling isn’t the same, the sort of incidents you will get on a borris bike are most likely low speed and could well be car hits rider etc. compare that to popping off at 35mph and bouncing round a bit while you scrape yourself down the tarmac or glmipse the rocks coming at you on the trail.

Except when on the road bike you spend 99% of the riding time in the road, with cars. The exposure is much greater than crossing the road where you have a much greater control of the variables and walking on the pavement where there are a lot less cars driving these days.
If you take a risk per hour you would need to cross a lot of roads to get close to the risk of riding on the road for 20km.

But the per-mile fatality rate for pedestrians in road collisions is actually higher than that for cyclists. Granted, per hour it’s lower because walking takes longer, but on that broad statistical basis I have less chance of being killed if I cycle to the station than I do if I walk.

Obviously, it’s not that simple. But it’s a little too easy to perceive walking as more safe than it really is and cycling less.

I still choose to protect the one part of me that doesn’t heal well and doesn’t respond well to being hit on the floor at speed.

You wouldn’t include, say, your spinal column in that description?

no, from a H&S/risk assessment point of view it’s still a risk

Of course. But “trivial” does rather imply that it may not be a risk that warrants mitigation. I mean, I infer that you’re of the opinion that the risk of being hit by a car while on foot is “trivial”. It exists, of course; it’s “still a risk”. But you don’t mitigate against it, because you consider it to be trivial.

Of course. But “trivial” does rather imply that it may not be a risk that warrants mitigation. I mean, I infer that you’re of the opinion that the risk of being hit by a car while on foot is “trivial”. It exists, of course; it’s “still a risk”. But you don’t mitigate against it, because you consider it to be trivial.

I mitigate that by avoiding walking among cars, crossing safely, general awareness and by using those nice segregated walking areas.

Cars are not the only issue for cyclists, falling off due to rider error etc. Not everyone is bimbling round town. Wrapping cycling up as one thing might be nice but it’s not.

there are zero drawbacks to wearing a lid

I shall for ever picture you sat there now in your helmet as there is zero drawbacks to wearing it to mitigate the trivial risk of failing from the chair.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I’ll consider it, I’ve hit my head enough to be a fan.

Same two points as always with a helmet discussion.

Do helmets actually work
No scientific testing or evidence and remains anecdotal. This could be addressed if ever enough interest/funding

Do I need to wear a helmet when cycling (with assumption they actually do offer some protection)
The statistics/information is out there and can be used for the individual to assess the risk.

So all we are left with is the risk assessment which points towards no need to wear one. If an individual wants to ignore that or feels their risk is higher then wear a helmet, just as they can when doing anything thing else (walking down icy pavement) but don’t make it law and don’t tell everyone else they should wear one.

Just spent a week cycling around Holland. Surprisingly enough it was Mrs INVG who suggested it wasn’t worth taking the helmets with us because nobody wears one over there.

If no other post demonstrates that people’s perception of whether or not wearing a helmet is necessary often isn’t based on objective logic it’s surely this one…

Cars are not the only issue for cyclists, falling off due to rider error etc. Not everyone is bimbling round town. Wrapping cycling up as one thing might be nice but it’s not.

Well, exactly. Change “not everyone is bimbling round town” to “not everyone is trying to get a Strava KOM” and this very point undermine the “bike ergo helmet” argument as much as it does the “no-one can benefit from a helmet” one.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I’ll consider it, I’ve hit my head enough to be a fan.

And a vast number of people who ride bikes will never travel at 45mph and will never hit their head.

Well, exactly. Change “not everyone is bimbling round town” to “not everyone is trying to get a Strava KOM” and this very point undermine the “bike ergo helmet” argument as much as it does the “no-one can benefit from a helmet” one.

Getting Strava into a helmet thread, have a medal 😉 just another example that cycling isn’t just one thing.

The problem with the helmet discussion is the anecdotes. No-one tells the story of the time they were riding along and didn’t fall off. No-one tells the story of the time they were wearing a helmet, hit their head, and died anyway. The only stories that are told are the subset of situations where someone hit their head and survived.

And then, the helmet is always given credit. “The helmet was smashed in half, that could have been my head!” Well, you could say the same thing if you’d been wearing an eggbox on your head – “Look, the eggbox is totally crushed, it must have saved my life!”

The problem with the helmet discussion is the anecdotes. No-one tells the story of the time they were riding along and didn’t fall off. No-one tells the story of the time they were wearing a helmet, hit their head, and di[e]d anyway. the only stories that are told are the subset of situations where someone hit their head and survived. And then, the helmet is always given credit.

Ta-dah:

The Collision That Never Happened

I did read somewhere that not wearing a lid on the road can mean greater consideration from motorists due to the perceived vulnerability of not having a lid on. It could be due to standing out, like if you were to wander around a construction site without a high vis or hard hat, you stick out like a sore thumb.
Either way I’ve been trying no lid on the road again and whilst not scientific, I do seem to get more space and fewer SMIDSY’s.

I did read somewhere that not wearing a lid on the road can mean greater consideration from motorists due to the perceived vulnerability of not having a lid on. It could be due to standing out,

The one study…. ever quoted as perfect wasn’t that much difference and not very repeatable and from memory the numbers were not great enough to be drawing full conclusions.

“Ever-quoted as perfect” is rather a straw man. I’m sure some people do ignorantly treat it as irrefutable evidence, much as some treat anecdotes as cast-iron proofs, but mostly I’ve seen phrases like “there is some evidence that…” or “there is a study which suggests that…”.

First party risk compensation is a pretty well-documented behaviour; third party risk compensation seems not unreasonable. It would certainly be nice to have more data, though.

I always wear one on the bike now after a crash a few months ago cycling uphill. Cracked the helmet completely up the back and I walked away with a bit less skin on my elbow and legs and a bit of a headache. I am positive that without the helmet taking the impact, I’d have needed a hospital visit. Would I have died, likely not. Would I have suffered brain damage, probably not. I’m sure I saved some pain and unpleasantness though.

Ta-dah:

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-collision-that-never-happened/

I’ve seen that video before and I thought then that the bloke never needed to have that crash. If you’ve ever ridden or driven or walked anywhere you’ve see that behaviour from drivers and know that a pull-out is likely.

The problem with the helmet discussion is the anecdotes

In the words of Abraham Wald… “put the armour where the bullets aren’t”. If cyclists kept returning from accidents with undamaged heads, that’s what Wald would say you should protect. An antidote to anecdote. I quite like it.

I did read somewhere that not wearing a lid on the road can mean greater consideration from motorists due to the perceived vulnerability of not having a lid on. It could be due to standing out, like if you were to wander around a construction site without a high vis or hard hat, you stick out like a sore thumb.
Either way I’ve been trying no lid on the road again and whilst not scientific, I do seem to get more space and fewer SMIDSY’s.

I’ve been experimenting with the non-bikey look for some time now and it makes a noticeable difference in my experience. It’s not a scientific experiment, sure, but the evidence of a lack of close passes and drivers waiting for a space in approaching traffic before passing has convinced me that dressing up in the full garb seems to bring about the opposite behaviour in motorists. I have no idea why.

So yeah, I agree with you based on personal experience, not from an article about a study or anything.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I’ll consider it, I’ve hit my head enough to be a fan.

Your full quote

Just because a risk is trivial doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering, for me there are zero drawbacks to wearing a lid,

I am sure we can all agree that a head injury from a chair does actually occur and that the risk of is trivial hence most folk dont wear a helmet.
Given there is “no drawback” to wearing it you must be wearing it at your desk as you wear it when you face “trivial risks”?

Making up a scenario where the risks – technically its the effect of the risk- is high is just moving the goalposts.

SO do you wear it for the trivial risk of banging your head falling off a chair?

Much of our cycling is as dangerous as walking or having a shower
Much of it is far more dangerous than that off road down rocky descents . 45 mph on the road etc

As the risk increase the likely hood of me wearing a helmet increases

I see no need to wear it for low risks be it on a bike on foot or in the shower.

WHOOSH

WTF is that all about, chuckles? You seem to be writing it quite a bit recently…

So I said something that teasel did not like
That really is a turn up for the books

Out of my utmost respect for you I have deleted it.
Respectfully I am not even making any effort to annoy you so imagine what will happen if I really try 😉
You have made your point in numerous threads for and its most unlikely you are going to start liking me or I will have a personality change in the next few days.

How would you like to deal with this
Constant bickering/sniping or respectful ignorance? So far you have done the former and I am drifting from the later to the former

Bless you, you little ray of sunshine.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I’ll consider it, I’ve hit my head enough to be a fan.

I knew someone who died from head injuries sustained falling down the stairs.
I knew someone who died from head injuries sustained in a car accident.
I knew someone who died from head injuries sustained being run over while crossing the road.

Not one person has suggested that they should have been wearing a helmet.

certainly, while riding my bike I’ve clipped my head on low branches, smacked my head on rocks, thankfully not a bad road one yet but touch wood. All the above cases doesn’t mean that wearing a helmet while cycling wont help and isn’t a good idea, listing other ways to get head injuries doesn’t mean that they can’t be useful cycling.

Respectfully I am not even making any effort to annoy you so imagine what will happen if I really try
You have made your point in numerous threads for and its most unlikely you are going to start liking me or I will have a personality change in the next few days.

How would you like to deal with this
Constant bickering/sniping or respectful ignorance? So far you have done the former and I am drifting from the later to the former

Nice edit. TL;DNR

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I’ll consider it, I’ve hit my head enough to be a fan.

Obviously helmets have benefits for the accident prone. Avoiding some cuts and bruises. Cyclists usually need the help of a motor vehicle to be killed though. Helmets are of little use when a car hits you. Even helmet makers don’t claim they are. They are tested in 12mph impacts. A 48mph impact has 16 times the energy to deal with.

In this crash a car killed 4 helmeted riders in one go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm

Much of it is far more dangerous than that off road down rocky descents . 45 mph on the road etc

As the risk increase the likelihood of me wearing a helmet increases

The risk isn’t just the severity of the harm though, it’s the combination of that and the likelihood of it occurring – so the severity of the injury likely to be incurred falling off while going down a rocky descent, slowly, may well be far less than the severity of the injury likely to be incurred if it goes wrong while doing 45 mph on a road, but balancing that, the likelihood is much greater that the harm will occur while doing the rocky descent, which changes the relative significance of the risk.

In a workplace H&S setting you see this mistake all the time – people get fixated on the catastrophic things that are very, very unlikely to happen, and meanwhile lots of work time (and money) is lost through injury caused by people tripping over loose carpet or stray wires, lifting boxes badly etc.

All the above cases doesn’t mean that wearing a helmet while cycling wont help and isn’t a good idea, listing other ways to get head injuries doesn’t mean that they can’t be useful cycling.

It also does not mean a helmet wont be useful for those trivial scenarios
So again do you only wear a helmet for trivial cycling risks or do you wear one for other trivial risks?
TBH we know the answer what we really want is an explanation of why when the trivial risk is the same you wear it one scenario but not the other.

Personally, and its one of the few areas where STW changed my opinion, I could not come up with a good explanation so I started riding without a lid when the risk was low.

Accidents can happen anytime but if I am pootling along a canal at 6 ,mph with my kids on a bike why would I wear a helmet on a bike but not if running?

Interesting one this, I nearly always wear a lid.
Though on ocasions I dont.
Wednesdy night, slow ride [ 8 MPH ] of 300 metres on road a tootle around grass/woods all to check out a cyclo cross route I’ll be building shortly. Did I need a helmet ? I didt think so.
However 1/2 an hour later and it was a different story full on cyclocross training with 14 others wheels touching shoulder barging. Definately needed the insurance of a helmet.
Its always your choice just hope you all make the right one.

listing other ways to get head injuries doesn’t mean that they can’t be useful cycling.

Of course not (but then I’ve not seen anyone claim definitively that they can’t; please stop with the straw men). What it does is help highlight the [lack of] thought process of “being on a bicycle must inherently present a risk of a nature that warrants a helmet whilst being anywhere other than on a bicycle must not”.

In a workplace HnS setting you see this mistake all the time – people get fixated on the catastrophic things that are very, very unlikely to happen, and meanwhile lots of work time (and money) is lost through injury caused by people tripping over loose carpet or stray wires, lifting boxes badly etc.

I guess this is what they call a black swan.

I think that whether to wear a helmet or not is not a straightforward decision.

Someone said that it’s always safer to wear a helmet than not to wear one. This guy made a career explaining how, because of the risk compensation effect (people adjusting their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk) benefits of seat belts were neutralised by more risky behaviour of drivers. I think there is more than just anecdotal evidence that this effect applies to cyclists as well.

And then, the helmet is always given credit. “The helmet was smashed in half, that could have been my head!” Well, you could say the same thing if you’d been wearing an eggbox on your head – “Look, the eggbox is totally crushed, it must have saved my life!”

So thats why bread is called the ‘staff of life’

Some other protective items that the binarists might like to consider (bread is not currently on the list):

Lifesavers

I’m now curious whether that was TJ or me* – or just a combination of all the arguments.

*not being smug if so, simply amused, because I almost always wear a helmet when riding a bike – the majority of my mileage without this year was spent riding with you!