[Closed] Helmet on road?

've been observing online "debate" about cycle helmets for about 15 years, and I've never seen anyone offer a new argument or change their position

Same as ransos - I used to be in the pro [i]"it's commonsense really"[/i] camp till I started looking at it in more depth.

Now I'm in the far vaguer camp of "typically wear one, but sometimes don't. Wholly accept the risk compensation, perception and societal arguments and never slag anyone off who makes an informed decision on whether they wear one or not"

Me personally I respect your right not to wear one however please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury.

Well that's nice isn't it? You'd go past someone in need of help to prove a point and feel smug? Lovely.

Would you rather take an impact to your skull with or without a helmet

Why do people keep making this straw man argument?? I think that's probably the fifth time in this thread.

NO ONE is saying they would prefer to hit their head without a helmet on.

NO. ONE.

please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury.

Wow! That's nice.

Can I ride on past you if you break your neck?

NO ONE is saying they would prefer to hit their head without a helmet on.

It's the implication, isn't it?

never slag anyone off who makes an informed decision on whether they wear one or not"

Going by the thread, I'm not sure it's actually possible to make an informed decision.

It's the implication, isn't it?

No.

It's the implication, isn't it?

It really, really, really isn't.

If you read that [url= http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full ]Mayer Hillman BMJ article[/url] I posted earlier then even he concedes that:

The Cochrane review by Rivara and the Thompsons found evidence that if you bang your head the consequences will be less severe if you are wearing a protective helmet.
..
[b]We accept the principal finding of their review — that protective helmets protect in the event of an accident[/b] — but not the policy conclusions that they derive from it. The issue that divides us is risk compensation..

So this thread is then about two things:

1) don't be a dick towards non helmet wearers and
2) it might be safer to go without protection becuase it'll make you ride safer?

ransos - Member

As I said, if you can't see it, I can't help you. I'll leave you to carrying on rubbing your trousers.

You could help, you could quote your original answer.
Well, you could if you had ever answered my question, which you haven't.
You know you haven't, otherwise you'd have already repeated your answer.

Do grow up.

Ps. for your information, I am not wearing trousers. 😉

I wear a helmet on my 29er
I wear a helmet on my 26er
I don't wear a helmet on my 29er
I don't wear a helmet on my 26er

Now there's a survey!

EDIT - grahamS posted the same thing!

All of the below (what grahams said) need quantifying and there is very little data to do this accurately, hence the debate continues.

Most people agree correctly fitted helmets reduce your risk of a head injury in an accident.

So this thread is then about two things:

1) don't be a dick towards non helmet wearers and
2) it might be safer to go without protection becuase it'll make you ride safer?

For me, yeah pretty much.

I'd expand that to be:

1) don't be a dick towards non helmet wearers - because it's more nuanced than the simple, common-sense/darwinism issue that you perceive it to be.

2) it [i]might[/i] be safer to go without protection because:
- it'll make you ride safer
- other road users will give you more space and treat you with more caution
- other road/path users are more likely to regard you as a person rather than an alien "cyclist".

3) it [i]might[/i] be better for cycling/society to go without a helmet because:
- you don't promote the false idea that cycling is a dangerous sport that needs special clothes and safety equipment
- you do promote every-day cycling by "normal" people.
- you don't support the notion of victim-blaming

4) weigh up the evidence yourself, Make your own decision. Don't leave others to die because of the decision they made!

I find it strange that people are arguing against helmets as they [wearing them] make you more dangerous a rider, more likely to fall off and also be hit by a car.

A rider in our club had a fork failure [Steerer snapped] they were not in traffic not riding fast [C1 ride 10-12 MPH] no pressure from anyone other than to enjoy a ride.
The resulting fall meant weeks in hospital, intensive care and a long period of recovery.
Thankfully they were wearing a helmet and the kids still have 2 parents and their partner hasn't lost someone they love.

Now if anyone says wearing a helmet on the road is not worth it as they never fall and if they do they dont bang their heads I suggest they think again.

molgrips - Member
So this thread is then about two things:

1. I've got staying power when it comes to typing pointless stuff on the web
2. Check out my arguing/reasoning skills baby

You could help, you could quote your original answer.

Are you unable to? It would explain a great deal.

I find it strange that people are arguing against helmets as they [wearing them] make you more dangerous a rider, more likely to fall off and also be hit by a car.

A rider in our club had a fork failure [Steerer snapped] they were not in traffic not riding fast [C1 ride 10-12 MPH] no pressure from anyone other than to enjoy a ride.
The resulting fall meant weeks in hospital, intensive care and a long period of recovery.
Thankfully they were wearing a helmet and the kids still have 2 parents and their partner hasn't lost someone they love.

Now if anyone says wearing a helmet on the road is not worth it as they never fall and if they do they dont bang their heads I suggest they think again.

So you know what would have happened, had the rider not been wearing a helmet?

A rider in our club had a fork failure [Steerer snapped]

eek nasty! 😯

However just because it is [i]possible[/i] to injure yourself without risk compensation playing a part doesn't mean that risk compensation is an invalid argument. You need to consider your [i]overall[/i] risk of injury.

Presumably if he had broken his neck in that fall you wouldn't question why he wasn't wearing a neck brace?

Thankfully they were wearing a helmet and the kids still have 2 parents and their partner hasn't lost someone they love.

Because the helmet [i]definitely[/i] saved their life?

1. I've got staying power when it comes to typing pointless stuff on the web
2. Check out my arguing/reasoning skills baby

You missed:
3. It's a slow day at work and I'm stuck in an office while the sun is shining.

There are in the order of 100 cyclist deaths per year in the UK. This always feels way smaller than would be indicated by the number of stories you hear where "the helmet definitely saved my/my friend's/my relative's life", particularly as in many cases the lethal injuries aren't head injuries.

A rider in our club had a fork failure [Steerer snapped]

Probably caused by the extra weight of the helmet.

For the record I did state that I respected your right not to wear a helmet.

I did not say that I would walk past but implied that you respect my right to do so if I think that you may have been in a better state having wore a helmet! That is you have a cut or banged head OK before you start jumping to conclusions.

NO ONE is saying they would prefer to hit their head without a helmet on.

It's the implication, isn't it?

ransos - Member

So you know what would have happened, had the rider not been wearing a helmet?

No, maybe they wouldnt have ridden if they'd forgotten it. However I'll ask you a few questions

Do you ride a road bike
Do you wear a helmet
Have you ever fallen and banged you head
Do you ride a mountain bike

- it'll make you ride safer

I always ride safely!

- other road users will give you more space and treat you with more caution

You have to admit that's tenuous. And for them to do that they have to have seen you. Not seeing cyclists has to be a big factor in accidents.

- other road/path users are more likely to regard you as a person rather than an alien "cyclist".

Very tenuous imo.

- you don't promote the false idea that cycling is a dangerous sport that needs special clothes and safety equipment

Hmm.. also tenuous. I doubt anyone's going to be prepared to go to all the physical exertion and minoor faff (carrying and using a lock, tucking trousers in etc) of riding a bike and then be put off by wearing a helmet.. but I'm sure someone will come along with a study in a minute.

- you do promote every-day cycling by "normal" people.

I don't see helmets and every-day-ness as incompatible. If it becomes the norm I doubt other people would either.

- you don't support the notion of victim-blaming

This I see as a possibility, but it could be legislated against - see the previous debate about automatic driver fault. But that in itself is a minefield too.

GrahamS - Member

Because the helmet definitely saved their life?

See above and answer same questions

I did not say that I would walk past but implied that you respect my right to do so if I think that you may have been in a better state having wore a helmet!

Okay - I respect your right to be a selfish arse.

Is it okay for me to walk past you if I think you should have been wearing a high-viz top, or helmet mirrors, or a neck brace? Or more pertinently if I decide you were going too fast because you felt safe in your helmet?

I wouldn't of course. I'd stop and help anyone regardless. Because I'm a nice person.

I'm happy to venture out without a bulletproof vest. I would prefer to be wearing one if I'm going to get shot in the chest though.

Exactly.

Do you ride a road bike
Do you wear a helmet
Have you ever fallen and banged you head
Do you ride a mountain bike

Yep, most of the time, yep, yep.

keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury

I did not say that I would walk past

Qualifying it with

that you respect my right to do so if I think that you may have been in a better state having wore a helmet! That is you have a cut or banged head OK before you start jumping to conclusions.

Do you ride a road bike
Do you wear a helmet
Have you ever fallen and banged you head
Do you ride a mountain bike

Yes to all of those questions. Earlier in the thread I described how a very low speed accident resulted in a cracked helmet.

Yes Graham thats quite ok so you are a selfish arse also. Glad we agree on that, pot kettle black.

Me personally I respect your right not to wear one however please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury.

Depressing. Utterly depressing!

Depressing. Utterly depressing!

Agreed.

pingu66: I assume you'd also walk past someone broken if you decided they would have been better off riding round that 6" drop rather than over it, or getting off and walking rather than trying to ride that rooty section? Or staying at home on the sofa?

- other road users will give you more space and treat you with more caution

You have to admit that's tenuous. And for them to do that they have to have seen you. Not seeing cyclists has to be a big factor in accidents.

[url= http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ ]Ian Walkers study[/url] was pretty conclusive no? 2,500 vehicles sampled. That sounds like a decent sample size to me. His data is publicly available for you to verify. Certainly matches my own experiences.

I do agree that not seeing cyclists is a much bigger factor - but for some reason I never see any high-viz debates or folk saying they wouldn't ride with someone who choose not to wear a high-viz safety vest and helmet cover.

Funny that.

- other road/path users are more likely to regard you as a person rather than an alien "cyclist".

Very tenuous imo.

Plenty of sociological studies that talk about de-humanising people. Look at the language that the press use. They frequently call cyclists "lycra louts" and the like, rather than acknowledging they are people.

The wearing of lycra and helmets is frequently mentioned and ridiculed in anti-cycling press. e.g. [url= http://www.****/news/article-1226245/Theres-stopping-lycra-lout-cyclists-prosecutions-running-red-lights-plummets.html ]Here is the Daily Mail calling us "lycra louts" and "Darth Vader on two wheels"[/url]

- you don't promote the false idea that cycling is a dangerous sport that needs special clothes and safety equipment

Hmm.. also tenuous. I doubt anyone's going to be prepared to go to all the physical exertion and minoor faff (carrying and using a lock, tucking trousers in etc) of riding a bike and then be put off by wearing a helmet

You'd be surprised. Helmets cost money. They mess up hair, make you sweaty and look silly. These are genuine factors that put some non-cyclists off cycling. There is a reason that positive pictures of glamorous people cycling don't show helmets:

[img] [/img]
(she hasn't even stopped at the lights!)

But beyond that the bigger impact that puts people off cycling isn't the wearing of a helmet, but that you NEED to wear a helmet because apparently it is really really dangerous and needs protective gear.

Pingu is a perfect example of how warped people's idea of risk taking is as it relates to helmet wearing.

walking on a flat path, no helmet - fine. Hill-walking without a helmet - no problem at all.

Cycling on a flat path, no helmet, my god, you selfish arse, you deserve everything you get, no way would I stop to help.

Pushing your limits on a mountain bike over hazardous terrain - absolutely fine. Do what you like, any risk taking is acceptable, apart from choosing not to wear a helmet.

Actually you really need to go back and have a look at what is written.

At no point did I say that "I WOULD" walk past an injured rider. So yes feel free to criticise something that I have not actually said just what you believe I have said.

Its utterly depressing that you cant actually read.

There is a reason that positive pictures of glamorous people cycling don't show helmets:

I'll post what you wrote again:

keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury

I did not say that I would walk past

Well done Terry do you want to quote the whole part of that or just the part you want to publish.

That is you respect my right to do so or someone who chooses to, again at no point did I say that I would, ie not saying that I would. Indeed even in your selective quote does it say I will walk past, fraid not so try again.

Still here chaps?

I must commend GrahamS on a sensible, adult, and above all intelligent attempt to explain the issues around helmet use despite being assailed with the usual youmustwearahelmetoryou'lldie stuff.

I've done 110 miles on my bike since this thread began, I wore a helmet, but as I suggested above, the hat is not the issue.

It would help if you looked at those societies where the bike is a form of transport; the Netherlands, Denmark and so on, and see if you understand how bicycles are used.

I'm still confused with pingu, and with why I'm still typing.

"Everyone has a right to their choices, and a right for others to respect their choices, unless those choices result in bad things, in which case other people have a right (which should be respected) not respect them anymore, and leave them injured on the trail"

Something like that?

Graham, you don't think that perhaps people's experiences as they go about their daily business counts for more than helmet wearing when it comes to perception of safety?
Cycling on the road can be pretty scary, and I'm an ex motorbike courier and have done more than 70,000 miles as a cyclist.
God knows what it feels like to a complete novice.

OK Pingu what bit of "Me personally I respect your right not to wear one however please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury." suggests you'd stop.

As far as I understand English "keep moving along" doesn't mean "stop and check".

Cycling on the road can be pretty scary

But the presence or not of a polystyrene hat doesn't affect that scariness!

...which is pretty much the whole point that everyone is missing.

Graham, you don't think that perhaps people's experiences as they go about their daily business counts for more than helmet wearing when it comes to perception of safety?

Yep - but sadly a good many people won't even get to that stage because they (or their parents) will decide that cycling is [i]obviously[/i] "far too dangerous", even if they just wanted to ride on a traffic-free path to work/school.

Witness the various schools that outright ban pupils from cycling on "health and safety" grounds for example.

Ian Walkers study was pretty conclusive no? 2,500 vehicles sampled. That sounds like a decent sample size to me. His data is publicly available for you to verify. Certainly matches my own experiences.

Ian Walker himself expresses some reservations about his methodology, but if you are going to accept that his findings actually illustrates a significant safety risk then I take it you will always be riding in secondary while wearing a long blonde wig?

Cycling on the road can be pretty scary
But the presence or not of a polystyrene hat doesn't affect that scariness!

...which is pretty much the whole point that everyone is missing.

Yup but not including me. You obviously missed the part earlier in the thread where I said "I think crikey is largely correct" 😆

Ned not sure if you are quoting what you think I wrote but thats not what I said.

Ned I see you are still trying to put your own twist on things and again both misinterpreting and misquoting what I have put.

And "I will respect your right not to wear a helmet, but I will respect you so much, I won't ride with you, and you should respect that."

???

Ian Walkers study was pretty conclusive no?

IIRC the measure was subjective - ie he did not actually measure how far away they were he estimated
The differences were non significant as well.

I dont think it was randomised or controlled for time of day or other risk factors

It was done essentially as a laugh and for some insight and now it is treated like it the definitive tomb on this issue

Nice rebuttal here - note their measuring tool

a dual parallax spectrographic imaginometer.

OUTTHERELIVING.COM "http://outthereliving.com/Ian_Walker_move_over_pls.pdf"

Actual scientific rebuttal

Seriously Graham S read it is poor- cant find a copy online from a few minutes searching
.

polystyrene hat

I like that. I'm going to use that from now on instead of the word 'helmet'.

What you wrote doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to reword it to see if I've got the right end of the stick or not. I still don't know what you mean.

Can you help?

Witness the various schools that outright ban pupils from cycling on "health and safety" grounds for example.

"I think crikey is largely correct"

You bloody fool! Not even [b]I[/b] think I'm largely correct... 😆

Ian Walker himself expresses some reservations about his methodology,

I've not read his reservations (link?), but it's not a perfect study by any means. It got published in the Accident Analysis and Prevention journal though, so meets some basic tests for rigour.

Edit: never mind Junky has posted some rebuttals.

I take it you will always be riding in secondary while wearing a long blonde wig?

And a nice floral dress.

No, obviously, but I'm not averse to doing a little noob-wobble to get myself a bit more room.

I think the point about that is that it indicates that helmet wearing (if you see it as a problem) is more of a symptom than a cause.

I do think it adds to the perception that utility cycling is risky. Which it isn't.

ransos - Member

Are you unable to? It would explain a great deal.

I am unable to, because you never answered my question. 🙂

Carry on playing your schoolyard game of "I know something you don't" if you like, but I fear you may have misunderstood the basic premise of the taunt... 😉

he did not actually measure how far away they were he estimated...

Hmm.. his website says they "modified a bicycle subtly to carry a video system and [b]accurate ultrasonic distance sensor[/b] which could record passing proximities."

pingu aside, I don't really have anything to add, but here's my 2p anyway:

I really like riding a bike. I like the freedom of getting on and going, I like not wearing a rucksack and feeling the wind rippling my t-shirt. I like riding in flip flops with the sun on my face and the wind in (the remainder of) my hair.

The more clutter that surrounds the bike riding experience, the less good it feels.

Sometimes wearing shoes is a good idea, and I'll wear them. Sometimes wearing a helmet is a good idea. Sometimes I'll take a backpack. very ocasionally I'll wear pads. But only when I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I don't think traffic, or on easy trails off road, necessarily means helmet wearing has a benefit for that ride which outweighs the negative.

That's just how I feel. We're all different, I don't like the idea of downhilling as a pastime, I think the potential for serious/inconvenient injury is too high. Some people don't like the idea of cycling in traffic. or cycing full stop.

Some of the extreme emphasis on judgment of other people's risk appetite based entirely on their helmet choice seems incredibly blinkered and narrow-minded.

I said IIRC - I tried to check but could not get the report on the web

Happy to be corrected on that claim
the rest?

Have you got the actual report - linky

ta

I am unable to, because you never answered my question.

Carry on playing your schoolyard game of "I know something you don't" if you like, but I fear you may have misunderstood the basic premise of the taunt...

Yes I have. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

I'll leave you to get back to your trouser rubbing.

OK ned carry on trying to rewrite it to make sense to you. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

To clarify me as an individual. I wouldn't walk past a sick or injured animal. However if you banged your head and I stopped to see if you were ok, ie I was aware you were injured, and you had a bump and were not wearing a helmet I may choose to think that you were a little silly for not having a helmet on. Now if you think that I was suggesting I would ride past if you were lying in a ditch then think again.

But please do carry on with misquoting, I hope there is something in this post you are able to misquote.

not answering and then ad homing ad naseum whilst ignoring an actual debate going on around is pointless

Can you just leave it as it beyond childish now or just e-mail each other with yes I did no I didnt type comments

Feel free to let us all know whose dad was indeed the hardest
Thanks
Pingu it is aimed less at you but just refrain is my advice/plead

I hope there is something in this post you are able to misquote.

No need!

A rider in our club had a fork failure [Steerer snapped]

Most of my road miles are done on my Surly Long Haul Trucker which has a hefty 1 1/8" steel steerer. I've removed the fork for flying twice and taken the chance to examine the fork for any hairline cracks. I'm satisfied that the risk of steerer failure is close enough to zero that I'll take it without a helmet. Were I riding a bike with an aluminium or carbon steerer I might make a different choice.

ransos - Member

Yes I have. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

I'll leave you to get back to your trouser rubbing.

You could easily put this to bed by simply repeating your answer, if you had one. 💡

Considering that we're probably in general agreement about much of this discussion, it's a shame you spend so much energy with playground sillyness to avoid conceding a point on the internet.

As for me I'm juvenile with too much time on my hands, although I'm still not wearing any trousers. 😀

That does clarify, thanks. You stop, see someone's injured, got a bump on the head say, they're not wearing a helmet. You "might choose to think they're a little silly"

Absolutely fair enough. No problem with that at all.

It leaves the reader with a hugely reduced, nay eradicated sense of you being a selfish arse that you managed to put acorss in your original post.

And you had a problem with us misquoting...

To clarify me as an individual. I wouldn't walk past a sick or injured animal. However if you banged your head and I stopped to see if you were ok, ie I was aware you were injured, and you had a bump and were not wearing a helmet I may choose to think that you were a little silly for not having a helmet on. Now if you think that I was suggesting I would ride past if you were lying in a ditch then think again.

I do love a bit of internet forum revisionism 🙂

Anyway, not sure why the need to rush to judgement about how or why someone obtained an injury, rather than just thinking 'oh sh*t, that guy needs some help'. That kind of thinking is the sort which will have us all being forced to take out compulsory (and expensive) accident insurance.

Have you got the actual report - linky

Sadly not - you have to pay for it. I did watch a presentation about it and skim through it at some cycling event though.

The summary is available for free here:

Critical point is his results were non significant

Statistically or practically? Statistically speaking they were significant. Practically, well yeah, they only came about 8cm closer on average when wearing a helmet - but it's not really the average overtakes that worry me.

BTW, his rebuttal to the Cyclists View rebuttal is here:
http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html

Considering that we're probably in general agreement about much of this discussion, it's a shame you spend so much energy with playground sillyness to avoid conceding a point on the internet.

I asked you to think about something, which you've decided you don't want to do, for reasons best known to yourself.

I will end our dialogue, as it's clear that you're only interested in arguing for its own sake. I suppose it fills the time.

Enjoy your trouser rubbing.

KCR - Are you new here? 😉

kcr - Member
Every thread just repeats the same comments that were posted the last time.

But I kind of agree 😉 . How do these threads go on so long - they are a guaranteed 10+ pagers?

IMO, whether someone else wears a helmet or not is none of my business and vice versa. Ditto climbing a rock face solo, OW swimming on my own, wilderness canoeing and camping. The choice on individual risk limits is personal to the extent that it does not endanger others, surely?

I spent most of life riding without helmets until triathlon rules forced me to do otherwise. 9/10 I now ride with a helmet but occasionally I do not. What business is it of anyone else's? The odd MTB ride sans-casque is lovely even though I have had enough bangs on the head to realise the potential consequences (more from trees than the deck itself!).

You bloody fool! Not even I think I'm largely correct.

I certainly don't! *

The choice on individual risk limits is personal to the extent that it does not endanger others, surely?

Not entirely. We do have loved ones and those who love us. Apart from crikey* So we have a responsibility towards them not to die or sustain serious debilitating brain injuries.

* JOKE!

Statistically or practically?

No no my mistake lets get personal instead and I will claim i answered it whilst one of does bizarre rub your trouser "jokes"?

We do have that responsibility indeed molgrips, and we make judgements about that many times each day in lots of ways. And in most cases, when this does not involve others, we make those choices individually. IMO helmets should be the same instead of - "I saw someone at Swinley the other day without a helmet. It boiled my....".

Why? That's his/her choice.

😀 @ molgrips!

Pffft... I'm not wearing trousers either. Or pants.

Just a dead hooker.

ransos - Member

I asked you to think about something, which you've decided you don't want to do, for reasons best known to yourself.

I seem to remember stating that I would answer your question when you had answered mine, apologies if that wasn't clear.

I will end our dialogue, as it's clear that you're only interested in arguing for its own sake. I suppose it fills the time.

Coming from the man who could simply end the pointless circle by actually providing an answer to the question I posed, but repeatedly chooses not to, that's a bit rich matey!

My motives for arguing were clearly stated in my first post. I'll repeat them if necessary. 🙂

Enjoy your trouser rubbing.

How many times dude, I am not wearing trousers!
I don't even have any trousers to hand to give a gentle rub, should the desire arise.
Why the fixation with me rubbing myself? 😕

(Will post video for cash) 😉

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

It's a very good idea, as discouraging people from riding motorbikes is good for the health of the population.

Anyway, if I'm not going to wear a helmet, this is the helmet I'm not going to wear;

[img] [/img]

I got one the other day from Halfords and it's proved to be very nice. No doubt it will join all the others I've collected over the years, but for now....

When I first read pingu's comment I thought hey up that's not nice, then I re read it in context & gave him the benefit of the doubt. Bad analogy maybe or poor choice of words whatever you want to call it granted, but I don't think he or any other cyclist is going to ride past another injured.

Why the fixation with me rubbing myself?

(Will post video for cash)

I heard they were the most ventilated helmets around, crikey.. Is that why you like it?

I fancy one.