See, that’s the problem with the “helmets don’t save lives / no proof” argument. A fair enough argument but it’s used as a reason not to wear a helmet. To me wearing a helmet is more about not ending up with a bloody great gash pouring blood out.

Awesome picture by the way though (the original gory one, though the stitches look suitably grim and threatening too)

I think my male escort/modelling human biltong display stand career is safe

The stats are that a massive amount of accidents happen within a couple of miles of your house.

Yes.

Anyone care to guess why that might be? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I reckon it’d have been pretty likely you’d have ended up with that head injury anyway. I’d suggest always wearing a full facer from now on.

I used to work in a town where an American guy used to wear a full face motorbike helmet everywhere when outside, walking.

He was a lecturer at the local uni.

Ouch, healing vibes.

On the helmet question would a normal MTB helmet have changed much ? Would seem you would have still smashed your nose / cheek bone although less of a forehead gash ?

Anyone care to guess why that might be? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Well, everyone knows a nasty bit of road near where they live. I imagine it’s that.

What I want to know is: will kimbers wear a lid when he goes to the shops next time?

Why would I wear a helmet to drive my car?

In case you crash into a bollard?

I do think wearing a helmet would’ve helped even if my nose(which is very sore) and possibly my eyebrow would be hurt but it would’ve helped prevent the gash which i think burst open with the force of impact, kind of like a tomato does

Nasty gash. What caused the accident OP?

kind of like a tomato does

A Tomato abuser! Stone him!!

With an injury to that pathia head I’m suprised you didn’t need a samabalence.

Anyone care to guess why that might be?

The serious answer – it’s because all journeys, if they start or finish at your house, cover the roads near your house.

It just goes to show that you’re no LESS likely to have an accident, on a per mile basis, just because you’re just popping to the shop.

If you ride to the shops 2 miles away three times a week without a helmet that’s 26 miles a month, the equivalent of one MTB ride. So it’s a bit pointless to not wear one for the shops whilst wearing one for longer rides. Bad drivers and bollards don’t care how far you are from your house.

I hope everyone is also wearing their little red dresses while in cars. It could save your life.

I wear a full face motorbike helmet and leathers all the time, just in case.

If you ride to the shops 2 miles away three times a week without a helmet that’s 26 miles a month, the equivalent of one MTB ride

Equivalent distance, not equivalent risk. I’ve now idea which is of the lower risk, but you can’t draw risk conclusions based on differing journeys (well you can, but they’ll be wrong esp with low risk activities such as cycling)

If you ride to the shops 2 miles away three times a week without a helmet that’s 26 miles a month, the equivalent of one MTB ride

Equivalent distance, not equivalent risk. I’ve now idea which is of the lower risk, but you can’t draw risk conclusions based on differing journeys (well you can, but they’ll be wrong esp with low risk activities such as cycling)[/quote]

That’s probably three hours a month of riding. Statistically, you have to ride for something like 90 years to be guaranteed a serious crash, which is a lot of trips to the shop.

The serious answer – it’s because all journeys, if they start or finish at your house, cover the roads near your house.

Indeed. Five points to Hufflepuff. 😀

Having said that, I went to a lecture recently where a Professor of Analytics was talking about catching bats.

Turns out that if you just string up a net in the forest the bats will fly round it because they easily detect it, but if you string up the same net across the entrance to their cave then you catch them easily.

It’s only natural to let your guard down when you are on familiar territory.

Statistically, you have to ride for something like 90 years to be guaranteed a serious crash

Statistically, you’re never guaranteed one. But in any case a chance of less than 100% is still a chance. Let’s assume the probability approaches 1 in 90 years, then even in 30 years of riding to the shops you’ve got a 1:3 chance of a serious crash on the way to the shops. I’d wear a helmet for that!

Equivalent distance, not equivalent risk

Quite so, I was assuming constant risk for all cycling which isn’t true. In fact, I’d say urban cycling is more risky due to lots of cars containing drivers who are having to look out for lots of things; and the prevalance of such things as bollards and dozy pedestrians.

Conversely, if you are on an MTB ride there might only be a couple of difficult or fast downhills and the rest could be climbing at 4mph or cruising traffic-free. I don’t think helmet off-road and no helmet on-road is a sensible criterium because road is probably more dangerous than all but the fastest or most careless off-road. And “just going to the shops” is no better.

a chance of less than 100% is still a chance

Do you wear a car helmet?

i hit a bollard in a dark alley

ive been down the alley loads and loads of times, never really noticed the bollard just subconsciously avoided it

if it was an unfamiliar place id probably have looked better and proceeded with more caution

definitely a case of familiarity making me careless

Do you wear a car helmet?

No I have airbags and a rollcage.

A chance of less than 100% can still be a SIGNIFICANT chance. I can’t see the relevance of your argument here.

Have we started arguing yet?

I can’t see the relevance of your argument here.

There’s a tiny chance of a head injury when walking to the shops.
There’s a tiny chance of a head injury when running to the shops.
There’s a tiny chance of a head injury when cycling to the shops.
There’s a tiny chance of a head injury when driving to the shops.

I was just checking that you were only advocating helmet wearing for one of these activities.

Not quite yet Hora, but the protagonists are flexing their intellectual muscles….

😀

Friend of mine badly broke his ankle stepping down the stairs. He almost had to have it fused. 😯

Awwww – could have been worse, it could’ve been your nan!

binners I don’t like the punctuation that you’ve used. It looks threatening, lets argue.

Lets all just stay away from shops, people.

(am including fast ffod establishments/restaurants, for clarity)

It doesn’t show that at all. If 80% of accidents are within a couple of miles of your house, yet 90% of mileage is on roads within a couple of miles of your house, what is the risk of riding within a couple of miles of your house compared to the risk elsewhere?

What I do wonder is if the OP had been wearing a helmet, and had therefore destroyed it in the crash, whether that would then have been trotted out as a “helmet saved my life” anecdote.

Lets wrestle instead…..

Glad your ok OP OOOF binners stop lifting me by my gstring strap 😯

This guy doesn’t need a poxy helmet to pick up his shopping:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPZhbI9bJDg[/video]

😯

http://road.cc/content/news/139975-video-brazilian-cyclist-balances-gas-canister-and-watermelon-his-head

was just checking that you were only advocating helmet wearing for one of these activities

Is ‘tiny’ a mathematical term? Cos you seem to be saying that the risk is the same for each activity. Or maybe you are saying the risk is insignificant? Perhaps you should tell the OP that 🙂

I reckon the risk is greatest when cycling, out of that list you posted. But anyway this thread is not about overall risk, it’s to point out that the risk is not diminished simply because you are only going to the shops.

The difference in risk between the activities is relatively small, but doing one without a helmet leads to hysteria.

My average speed on a ‘proper’ ride is higher than if I’m popping to the shop, so the risk is higher. Had the OP been running to the shops, he’d possibly not have seen the bollard and sustained the same injuries…

without a helmet leads to hysteria.

ha ha… only on here. 😆

I pretty much never wear one and ride pretty much every day (about 6000miles a year split 2:1 between road and mtb with a bit of BMX)… only time I even get comments it’s from relative noobs with all the gear.

get well soon funky dred bloke.

The difference in risk between the activities is relatively small, but doing one without a helmet leads to hysteria.

I challenge both of those 🙂 No-one’s being hysterical. I’m more annoyed with the shit logic than people’s heads tbh. If you don’t want to wear one say so; don’t try and wheel the maths out.

You reckon? http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm

No, you’re right. All the evidence I’ve seen suggests far more lives would be saved by compulsory bike helmets in cars than compulsory helmets for cyclists. Not to mention walking down stairs, showers etc.

Assume you were going full chat? Lucky boy, could easily have given yourself a head injury and endedup in a deep keema.

Yes I reckon.

Surely only a STW regular would have even found such a website 🙄