I note that Lord Sir Bradley of Wiggins has waded in by saying they should be compulsory.Idiot.
Again? He was widely misquoted about it this time last year after an off-hand comment in a interview.
but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one
I can
I would give up MTB [ ok the gnar] if i could not wear a helmet doing it and that is where i have 99% of my accidents
We've had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters. I think we take those arguments against as quite stupid now. Hopefully we look back at this argument in the same way.
And pedestrians - its just as dangerous to walk
Oh and car drivers they get head injuries as well.
We will look back and see not wearing a helmet all the time as stupid then.
If people don't want to wear one that is up to them. If they take a tumble crack their head on a kerb and spending the rest of their miserable life drooling down their fronts, it was their choice.
Yes stupid pedestrians with their unprotected heads
as for the rest of that emotive tosh. Most folk accept a helmet mitigates risks rather than it ensures you will not end up a dribbling burden on your loved ones.
Most damage to a brain is caused by the deceleration of the head when the skull stops dead and the brain keeps going and hits the inner skull. As skulls are considerably stronger than brains a helmet is unlikely to make a great deal of difference- Does the lad in this incident have a fractured skull or brain damage ?
People die from internal injuries caused to the brain which helmets wont generally prevent
thanks for that - I think that sums up most people's view on this thread - with the exception of the extremists of course 😉crazy-legs - MemberGood article in The Times this morning:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3849991.ece
The significant paragrph from the Times is
"Motorists who speed, pass too close to cyclists, drive in cycle lanes, fail to look properly while turning and stop in cycle boxes at traffic lights are liable for fines and points on their licence as well as possible jail terms. These offences should be treated seriously by police and enforced more strongly, while cyclists who jump red lights or disobey the rules of the road should also be dealt with according to the same laws. Only a small minority of motorists or cyclists misbehave – most are law-abiding, responsible road users. This must be encouraged."
Unfortunately reporting them is at the moment a waste of time, I've tried.
El-bent - Member
[b]a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything[/b].....
You'll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread, While you are quite correct that this could be construed as placing the responsibility of road safety onto the cyclist and not the driver, I still think it's a sensible thing for cyclists to wear a helmet on the roads.
not sure if you read the OP - my comments were about the appropriateness of a campaign for compulsory helmet wearing (by cyclists) and if this really addressed any safety issues for cyclists ....not if wearing helmets is or isn't sensible
Might be emotional blackmail but you can't say it won't happen.
Last two accidents I had involved no other vehicle to blame. Both resulted in damaged helmets. One just scuffed as my head slid down Cutgate (massive run off just full on natural obstacles). From that accident I had broken ribs grazed arms which a helmet wouldn't protect but no facial damage other than dirt and sore neck. The one before that hit a brick with the back of my head. Coming down a cycle path that crossed a small bridge over a stream, child ran onto the bridge without looking so it was either it the girl or avoid. It left a fist size hole in the back of the helmet. No brain damage even though it decelerated from 15+mph to nil in less than a second. I think I would have been drooling down my front and needing care if not for the helmet. That's my proof that helmets work that I'm not in that situation. Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet. I don't know you and won't be looking after you.
You'll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread,
Well if you think that you'll have to forgive me for not bothering to read your post as undoubtedly it repeats some of the guff which has already been said and disproved.
Might be emotional blackmail but you can't say it won't happen.
If that is a real concern for you then I suggest you stop cycling immediately.
Helmets are only going to protect your head (a bit) - what if you break your neck or spine and are left "spending the rest of your miserable life drooling down your fronts"?
You DO wear a neck brace and spine protector don't you??
Most damage to a brain is caused by the deceleration of the head when the skull stops dead and the brain keeps going and hits the inner skull.
And [url= http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b95std ]SNELL helmet certification[/url] allows a deceleration of up to 300 G's before the helmet fails the test!
Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet.
You have no understanding of the issue being discussed. Please read the thread again from the start. Sorry.
Executive Summary: if you're going to bash your head then it's probably best to wear a helmet* - that doesn't mean that helmets should be compulsory or that making them compulsory would save lives overall.
* (excluding rare, freak injuries caused by the slightly increased rotational force)
as undoubtedly it repeats some of the guff which has already been said
as probably hadn't even read the OP it was actually "new guff" 😆
Might be emotional blackmail but you can't say it won't happen.
Whether it will or won't happen is irrelevant. You're trying to prove a point based on tugging on the heartstrings of people without using any kind of logical or rational argument. It's a poor way to get your point across and ignores so many other factors that may influence the greater picture of accident causation and resultant effect.
You're trying to simplify a matter so that it becomes a red-top soundbite and something like this has too big an effect, is too complex and potentially influences too many lives to go around blithely mouthing off without considering the impact* of what you're saying.
* For example, if research yet to be conducted demonstrated that risk compensation ended up with far more KSIs than lack of helmet wearing. NB I don't know if it does or not, but I'm not willing to argue it isn't important based on personal anecdotes and the mythical army of "dribbling patients" wheeled out to support the point.
Well said Peyote.
As usual anyone who wheels out the [i]"You are all idiots. It's just commonsense"[/i] argument hasn't actually given the matter much real thought.
And when your compulsion saves a handful of lives, possibly, in a good year, how do you defend against the larger increase in inactivity deaths that would result from compulsion?
If cycling rates drop by just, say, 10%, it's perfectly credible to believe that could result in far more deaths, given the far higher harm to society that inactivity is causing.
As I modelled earlier:
120 deaths from cycling. Most wouldn't have been prevented by helmet compulsion, fair to say? Let's say 10, very generous.
So that'd be overwhelmed by just a 0.01% increase in inactivity deaths, which given a 10% drop in cycling is perfectly credible.
(and yes, that 10% inactivity *could* be made up with activities other than cycling, but who's to say they are safer? Injury rates per mile are just as high for walking as for cycling. It'd therefore be important to also mandate helmet use for walking. Oh, and armbands for swimming.)
Oh and the big fallacy that its safe on a bike in Holland, with 200+ deaths in 2011 it is worse than the UK by almost 100%.
haha, just got to that fantastic [b]FACT[/b]. I love how you can disregard the fact that:
There are more bicycles than residents in The Netherlands and in cities like Amsterdam and The Hague up to 70% of all journeys are made by bike.
I wear blue shoes and have never been bitten by a poisonous spider, lots of people in the world however have, from this data I have hypothesized that blue shoes make you INVISIBLE TO POISONOUS SPIDERS.
On the old note, I wear a helmet all the time anyway. I'd have zero issue with them enforcing it on roads from a personal perspective. Quoting figures of children sat on the sofa really doesn't concern me, should they be out grinding Strava segments on busy roads?
It's a shame that a road accident instantly backfires into a completely irrelevant conversation. Rather than focusing on the massive systemic problems with road/bikes at the moment, the focus lays straight on the fact he didn't have any polystyrene on his head.
I'd have zero issue with them enforcing it on roads from a personal perspective. Quoting figures of children sat on the sofa really doesn't concern me
I don't really see the relevance though. Lawmakers need to consider the overall effect of the law. It's not about any individual's personal perspective.
And no, the kids shouldn't be out grinding out strava segments, that's a straw man. But if they're riding bikes rather than sitting on the sofa, there's a benefit to them, and a wider benefit to society.
That's my proof that helmets work
Where is your control? You have no actual proof - thats a mute point no one is denying a helmet absorbs the impact what we are debating is whether it will save your life- or in your case stop someone from drooling. You have yet to prove that point.
Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet. I don't know you and won't be looking after you.
Its to simplistic to suggest that every single crash you had with a helmet it saved your life.
For example my worst accident involved OTB and splitting my helmet. I was still knocked out and still need 4 stitches for a facial wound. I did ride off the mountain though. Without it I would imagine I would have possibly needed mountain rescue/to be walked off but it would not have been life threatening - though of course like your example this also lacks a control so we cannot be certain.
Just out of interest would you have cycled either of those routes without a helmet?
Where is the control sample any of the other arguments against wearing an helmet. Why don't you try to recreate your OTB accident and let us know the outcome.
My point was I would rather take a lesser risk of damaging my head with some kind of impact protection than not.
My point was I would rather take a lesser risk of damaging my head with some kind of impact protection than not.
Me too. I think most people would rather be wearing a helmet [i]when they bang their head[/i].
BUT what if wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of banging your head in the first place?
Is it still so clear cut?
The helmet saved my life argument is answered by looking at the fatalities during the century the TdF has been run. Mostly before helmets. A drowning (rest day), a drug induced heart attack, one crash down a ravine, and one crash at 55mph. Otherwise thousands of crashes at a relatively high speed for cycling has not resulted in a single death.
It can happen, but you are extremely unlikely to kill yourself without the help of a motor vehicle.
Or as it is put at cyclehelmets.org
It's not a simple matter to draw conclusions about the benefit a broken or deformed helmet might have provided in a crash. However, the fact that serious injury to unhelmeted cyclists is as rare as helmet damage is common, suggests that most of the claims of benefit from damaged helmets are likely to be exaggerated.
The bottom line is, if you make helmets compulsory, less people will cycle. This leaves the rest of us even more of a minority, and treated even worse by certain motorists.
As people have said already, we need to make the roads safer, not force the innocent parties to wear more protection.
Me too. I think most people would rather be wearing a helmet when they bang their head.BUT what if wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of banging your head in the first place?
Is it still so clear cut?
Where is the proof that wearing an helmet increases the risk of banging my head?
Where is the proof that wearing an helmet increases the risk of banging my head?
risk compensation,
Would you ride an mtb without a helmet?
risk compensation,Would you ride an mtb without a helmet?
No. I use an helmet at all times on or off road.
so your taking a risk you wouldn't take without a helmet,
rather makes a mockery of
Where is the proof that wearing an helmet increases the risk of banging my head?
doesn't it!
What complete bollocks. I ride a bike because I want to. I wear a helmet to lessen the chances of injury in doing so should I have an accident.
So your saying despite all the statistics to the contrary that cycling is dangerous?
No more so than most sports that involve speed, balance and the risk of crashing.
but cycling isn't a sport, just a way of getting from a to b, do you wear a helmet walking to the shops?
Like walking or is that not risky enough despite the head injuries ?
What complete bollocks
Have you a rational counter to the factually correct and logically coherent argument presented?
You just confirmed that you only ride with a helmet and yet so still deny it alters the risks you are prepared to take whilst telling us cycling is risky.
No helmet , no ride, no cycling related injury.
Helmet , so ride, so potential to get injured
That is you take greater risks because you wear a helmet
I wonder how well you backpedal [ with or without a helmet]
craigxxl - Member
What complete bollocks.
With that astute comment craigxxl wins the thread.
Yes, cycling is potentially dangerous - I have a paralysed cousin to prove it, Potential dangers are external (traffic, other riders, dogs, conditions etc) or internal (lack of skills, bravado etc). Luck also plays a role. Part of the thrill of Mtb is assessing and managing the risks involved. However, they can never be completely limited. Helmets are just one part of the equation, but like solo climbing or OW swimming etc there should be freedom to make your own choices on how you want to manage risks. I love the odd ride without a helmet and hope that I will continue to have the liberty to enjoy riding without one on those occassions.
Very rare that I fall over when walking. When I do I tend to end up on my backside not my head and the speeds involved are much, much lower too.
Junkyard, I don't take chances thinking that the helmet will save me if it all goes wrong and never said I did. I would still a ride a bike if helmets did not exist knowing the risks but since they do I wear one in case it does go wrong.
And lo, what I wrote about this morning did verily come to pass.
http://bristoltrails.tumblr.com/post/59089366552/helmentalists
When I do I tend to end up on my backside not my head and the speeds involved are much, much lower too.
Statistics are drawn from the general population not your own personal experience. These statistics show than many walkers /pedestrians die from head injuries as do car drivers. Why only cyclists ?
I would still a ride a bike if helmets did not exist knowing the risks but since they do I wear one in case it does go wrong.
If you would ride every single trail/descent gap and road exactly the same with a helmet or without a helemt then you will have proved the case for you.
[img] 
[/img]
or
[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQL_-C-DULQnDRi_lucGWym3r1Pds18KnRMKbWTaTYvp7YzFFgIxQ [/img]
I know which one i wont do without a helmet therefore it alters my behaviour / risk assesment
TBH it would be woeful PPE if it did not.
I imagine this is the case for all [ except the old diehard wont wwear a helmet at all- are there any left*?]
* not suggesting they are all dead just I dont know any. Perhaps because they even do with their kids
Would save far more lives to make helmets compulsory for car occupants.
Just sayin'
Dear The Government,
This diagram used to get used a lot in my old workplace (chemical engineering)
[img] 
[/img]
Hierachy of hazard control, the most effective control at the top, the least effective at the bottom. Eliminate the risk, substitute what you're doing/using with something less hazardous, bring in controls (like automated equipment) to do the job for you, have good admin procedures in place and lastly, you look at the PPE with a view to using the minimum amount necessary.
In cycling terms, you can't eliminate although can certainly minmise by having segregated routes. Engineering junctions, roads etc so that they're safer and admin controls would be things like presumed liability, a proper judicial system that actually treated cyclists as people rather than inconveniences. Once all that's in place, then you can make us wear helmets if necessary.
I look forward to your proposed laws to make cycling safer. Hint: helment wearing isn't one of them.
Where is the proof that wearing an helmet increases the risk of banging my head?
Since you deny being influenced by risk compensation (yeah right!) have you considered the risk compensation of others.
Drivers treat a serious looking cyclist in a helmet differently than one without.
Dr Ian Walker from Bath Uni did a lovely experiment to illustrate this that measured how much room drivers gave him when he was wearing a helmet compared to not. The results are informative!
except the old diehard wont wwear a helmet at all- are there any left*?]* not suggesting they are all dead just I dont know any. Perhaps because they even do with their kids
I'm one. The only time I have worn a helmet in years was a ride with my local MTB club to comply with their rules. Otherwise on road or off road I don't. My off road is not too technical though. Nothing harder than the Devils Staircase, Corrieyairick, Cairngorm Circuit etc.
My kids never wore helmets either. One of them once suffered a slight bruise a helmet would have prevented. They have had more non cycling related injuries. I didn't make them wear PPE for their other activities either.
GrahamS; I've got a crate of Export, a bottle of Mount Gay and 50cl of slivovice (Czech plum evil), is this the thread for me? 😀
After a crate of Export I'll be impressed if you manage to mount that gay, but have fun trying 😀
Looks like a vocal majority of road.cc members are all for compulsory helmet legislation 😕
At least the ones that comment on Facebook posts anyway:
Not sure what that says about mountain bikers versus roadies and the understanding of risk.
You realise while we're all talking about helmet compulsion we're not talking about the shocking driving standards that put cyclists in morgues?
Just saying, it's a very effective diversive technique to avoid the real issue which is most cyclists end up dead because some sad sack can't drive and should be removed from the road. Lets stop talking about this helmet crap and lets start talking about what will really save lives. Good infrastructure, education, stricter regulation.
but samuri your suggesting that drivers actually have a duty of care to those around them!
that is a really stupid idea, it is every drivers right to speed, use the phone, and kill the odd cyclist!!!
And even more shockingly that government should spend money on cyclists!!!!! that don't even pay road tax!!!! that don't buy petrol and pay tax! will never catch on!
I'm right with you samuri. Helmets are a red herring. A smoke screen.
Wearing a helmet doesn't make cycling safer. It just mitigates a few of the consequences.
It's not safer to be wearing a helmet when you are hit by an HGV. It's [i]safer[/i] not to get hit by an HGV at all!
I pretty convinced that if a compulsory helmet law was introduced then attention would very quickly switch to another easy smokescreen, like insisting all cyclists should wear high-viz flouro vests.
If we did that they'd start talking about pedal and wheel reflectors or having wing mirrors.
And so on.
Something tells me TJ is reading this thread 😉
This thread's gone round the same old cycle repeatedly and we seem to just be descending into the same old points scoring and personalisation that it always seems to.
The one thing I have noticed is that the majority of those not in favour of compulsion do still seem to be helmet users based on their statements. Same here.
So the standard "idiot" labelling doesn't really apply to most of the anti compulsion lot IMO. Blind acceptance of compulsion without addressing driving standards to my mind feels like a large swathe of the population have missed the point.
Shite driving is more accepted by the majority than allowing someone not really engaged in anything particularly dangerous a choice over wearing a polystyrene hat.
The one thing I have noticed is that the majority of those not in favour of compulsion do still seem to be helmet users based on their statements.
Just like last time.
I was going to type something intelligent but then i realised theres only a handful of people posting on this thread that have the intelligence to understand it. Fortunately they protect their intelligence with a helmet.
Here's my main reason for wearing a helmet anyway:
Nerver had a bad injury walking/running/etc
Been to casualty from a bike accident without a helmet.
Worn a helmet since and hit my head just as hard and never been to casualty since.
Believe what you like / wear what you like.
I have an opinion on this subject, it makes me so mad and upset.
I was going to type something intelligent but then i realised [s]theres only a handful of people posting on this thread that have the intelligence to understand it. Fortunately they protect their intelligence with a helmet.[/s]an ad hom would do
Nerver had a bad injury walking/running/etc
Gamblers fallacy - past events do not predict future events
Statistically its as likely as on a bike
The first sentence of my previous post speaks for it's self.
I'm now off climbing, should I wear a helmet ?
I was going to type something intelligent
So why didn't you?
Did you bother to read the rest of this thread, mjsmke, or did you just think that your gem of a post was so useful to the debate that you'd post anyway. IME anybody posting something like "Fortunately they protect their intelligence with a helmet." isn't actually quite as clever as they think they are.
Is it time for anecdotes now then?
I know/knew somebody who was killed by a head injury whilst walking in the mountains. I don't know anybody who's been killed as a result of a head injury on a bike.
[img] 
[/img]
Always wear a helmet. Unless they are friends or family I don't care in the slightest if anyone else does.
What I always find staggering however is the folks that seem to spend their entire lives on this forum. Everytime there is an argument or debate on any topic the usual suspects come out to play.
Serious question, but how do you find the time to continually post on here?
I'm pro helmet, pro compulsion.
The other day I was bringing the kids back from school in their trailer. I had to stop quickly because some folk had stepped out in front of me. Front wheel locked up, slid out and deposited me on the ground unceremoniously. Knee hit first, then hip, then elbow and hand, then my helmet hit the deck. I got that white flash you get when something hits you on the head.
Got up - helmet was knackered, but thankfully my head wasnt.
I am fine today, if a little stiff.
Last year, my father inlaw came off his bike - probably doing a similar speed - he wasn't wearing a helmet. He died.
To say that one sort of cycling is safe is bit daft.
I get the pro helmet bit (can't be bothered following TJ's advice about your anecdote), but how do you think compulsion will improve things? Reference to all the reasoned arguments against compulsion in this thread rather than another anecdote to support your opinion would be handy.
tpbiker. I keep thinking the same thing ?
How can there be so many riding gods that we owe so much to continually posting bollox that no one is interested in !
And then it goes around again and the bollox is re gurgitated by the same boring bastards that keep talking drivel in their self righteous belittling way !
I'll add my 2 penneth worth and couldn't give toss what shite others think or do, all this PPE and risk assessment crap is bewildering and in my opinion another form of making riding bikes elitist ! Ooooohhhh look at me I'm so pro I wear a helmet ! Snap out if it !!!!!! It's riding a ****ing bike ! A 3 year can do it !
If your exposed to no risk or danger then I can possibly see why your scared not wearing a helmet but if you've been shot at and been IED'd a couple of times your exposure to less worrying things become lesser, crossing the road for some is a major obstacle on the way to the office whilst some other may walk straight out into the road and wait in the middle stood on a white line waiting for a gap in the traffic,
This mothering of other people is quite frankly pathetic !
Concentrate on what your doing and **** everyone else, its always the ones who know **** all and do **** all that shout the loudest !
That's the STW way I think, all mouth and no ****ing action !
And then it goes around again and the bollox is re gurgitated by the same boring bastards that keep talking drivel in their self righteous belittling way !
I am sure they admire the respect and moderate tone within that post
Oh the ironingConcentrate on what your doing and * everyone else, its always the ones who know * all and do **** all that shout the loudest !
Brilliant post if intentional.
boils my blood when people have an accident then start crying that helmets should be compulsory.
they need to take some responsibility for their own actions instead of shifting blame to the state saying if only it were compulsory.
fwiw i am pro helmet and wear one 99 of the time but forced to wear one that is wrong.
if enforced all that would happen is that it wont be a criminal offence but you will get on the spot fines and even less people will want to cycle..
more people will become obese and the earth will shift off its axis due to fat brits causing cataclysmic repercussions and another ice age..
damn i need to go cycle with a helmet and save the planet
[i] http://www.headinjuryctr-stl.org/statistics.html [/i]
Over half the brain injuries were a result of the victim being drunk.
BAN ALCOHOL!
Half the injuries were nothing to do with a motor accident
BAN DOING ANYTHING!
Of the half that were motor vehicle related, presumably quite a lot occurred inside the car and yet they still harp on about cycling helmets. It's absolute madness!
Wear one if you want (I always do) but knee jerk reactions to media driven hysteria is simply nonsense.
Did the pic I posted a bit earlier not work properly, samuri?
I was too busy making my point to look at something you were posting.
