[Closed] Helmet on road?

Having had a number of offs on my MTB some of which involving a knock to my head that resulted in the helmet taking the brunt of the impact, same can be said from wearing eyewear as a blow to the face from an off has resulted in eyewear reducing any damage. Why take a risk when an injury could be less or prevented through wearing a helmet.

This is why I wear a helmet on or off the road. I don't need to trawl through the thread for opinions, science and facts for and against.

No thanks, I understand what a helmet is for thats why I wear one!

You don't seem to understand there is a spectrum of risk from downhill MTBing at one end to riding along a traffic free path for a mile to the shops at the other end. Are you seriously suggesting you are risking your life if you don't wear a helmet every time you get on a bike?

I'd guess almost everyone would wear a helmet for downhill mountain biking while many would consider them overkill for a short ride to the shops depending on road conditions.

If you think a helmet is needed for those shopping rides then maybe you should keep it on going round Tesco. What if you slipped on the floor and banged your head?

I'd suggest that as almost nobody is killed in cyclist only falls [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece ](look for yourself)[/url] that the human skull is perfectly adequate for protecting the brain at typical utility cycling speeds of 10-20mph. If it wasn't there would be scores or hundreds of cyclists dying in cyclist only falls every year. It almost always needs a motor vehicle to kill a cyclist. No helmet manufacturer claims any protection in motor vehicle accidents.

In any case unlike technical off road or road racing where falls can be expected now and then it is possible to ride for tens of thousands of miles without an injury accident when touring and commuting. I don't thinks that sort of risk needs head gear.

The DfT stats show one cyclist fatality for every 28 million miles cycled. Cycling is not dangerous. Avoid some of the big killers like left turning lorries and your risk will be even lower. Those DfT stats also show walking risks are in the same ballpark as cycling risks. Walking helmet?

http://road.cc/content/news/68212-dft-casualty-statistics-rank-driving-cycling-walking-and-motorcycling-risk

Are you seriously suggesting you are risking your life if you don't wear a helmet every time you get on a bike?

Errr no where did I say that? I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to. I don't have to justify that to anyone. Nor have I gone into the facts about fatalities and injuries due to vehicles.

Argue the toss all you like and carry on making assumptions about my reasoning for wearing a helmet as opposed to not. Its more sensible to wear a helmet for the just in case what if scenarios than not.

I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to

And yet you ride a bike?

I think you probably set the tone for debate when you waded in with this considered and eloquent starter:

flippinheckler - Member
Anyone that chooses not to wear a helmet is stupid.

POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

It's not unreasonable that others might expect you to expand on why they are "stupid" really 😕

I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to. I don't have to justify that to anyone.

People may draw some conclusions from this if you do though... I know I have 😀

So

02.05.2003
MANDATORY WEAR OF HELMETS FOR THE ELITE CATEGORY :

The International Cycling Union (UCI) announces that as from 5 May 2003 it will be mandatory to wear a hard shell helmet in Elite Men's events for classes 4 and above.

This decision was taken in agreement with all parties represented in the Professional Cycling Council : Sports Group Associations (AIGCP), Races Organisers Associations (AIOCC) and the Professional Riders Associations (CPA), who supports this initiative although some divergences have been expressed by some of its members.

Underlining however that this decision has received full support from its principal leaders in the field, the UCI is conscious that a small number of riders invoke the "individual freedom" to oppose the obligation to wear a helmet. Whilst respecting their opinion, the UCI invites them to reflect on the consequences this attitude can generate.

Death or disability of a rider in fact represents a great sourceor sorrow for close ones and also a great loss for cycling. The fact that the rider takes the risk in all "freedom" will never take away the discomfort linked to such tragedies.

Demands from a small group of individuals should not prevail on the general interest of the sport and its followers: it is with this conviction that the UCI presents today the amendments to the regulations concerning the obligation to wear a helmet, confident that all riders will carefully observe it.

and

Reduction In Fatalities

In 2008, as part of a report for the UK Department Of Transport, "A specialist biomechanical assessment of over 100 police forensic cyclist fatality reports predicted that between 10 and 16% could have been prevented if they had worn an appropriate cycle helmet."

Also

Meta-analyses

There are several meta-analyses and reviews which synthesize and evaluate the results of multiple case-control studies. A Cochrane review of case-control studies of bicycle helmets by Thompson et al. found that "helmets provide a 63 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%.".[34]

A 2001 meta-analysis of sixteen studies by Attewell et al. found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.4 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.5 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 3.7 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[35][36]

A 2012 re-analysis of the 16 studies in the Attewell meta-analysis, by Elvik, found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.5 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.3 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 4.3 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[37][a] When 5 new head-injury studies were added to the model, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.9 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain a head injury. When head, face and neck injuries were combined, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.4 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain an injury to the head, face or neck. The odds ratio for brain injuries reported by Elvik (95% CI 0.33-0.50) is consistent with the odds ratios using hospital controls reported in the Cochrane review (0.05-0.57 for brain injury and 0.14-0.48 for severe brain injury). In noting that the results of the meta-analysis were inconsistent with the results of the Cochrane review, Elvik may have been referring just to the head injury results (95% CI 0.26-0.37 in the Cochrane review; in Elvik's meta-analysis, 0.38-0.48 using the studies in the Attewell analysis, 0.49-0.59 when 8 new studies were included).

TRL Report PPR 446
FINDINGS
The Potential for Cycle Helmets to
Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence
Abstract
There has been much debate in the literature and elsewhere regarding cycle helmets and their
potential to prevent injury. This cycle helmet safety research report was commissioned to
provide a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of cycle helmets in the event of an on-
road accident, building on previous work undertaken for the Department for Transport (Towner
et al
., 2002). The programme of work evaluates the effectiveness of cycle helmets from several
perspectives, including a review of current test Standards; a biomechanical investigation
of their potential limitations; a review of recent literature; and finally an assessment of the
casualties that could be prevented if cycle helmets were more widely used.
Main findings
Assuming that cycle helmets are a good fit and worn correctly, they should be effective at reducing the
risk of head injury, in particular cranium fracture, scalp injury and intracranial (brain) injury.
•
Cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of accident conditions, particularly:
•
the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle, often simple
falls or tumbles over the handlebars; and also
•
when the mechanism of injury involves another vehicle glancing the cyclist or tipping them over
causing their head to strike the ground.
•
A specialist biomechanical assessment of over 100 police forensic cyclist fatality reports predicted
that between 10 and 16% could have been prevented if they had worn an appropriate cycle helmet.
•
Of the on-road serious cyclist casualties admitted to hospital in England (HES database):
•
10% suffered injuries of a type and to a part of the head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated
or prevented; and a further
•
20% suffered ‘open wounds to the head’, some of which are likely to have been to a part of the
head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated or prevented.

Oh.

Yes, haven't read back but that must be the first bit of hard evidence for or against helmet wearing.

Actually I mentioned the Cochrane Review quite a way back along with the Hillman/Adams objections to it, which are basically that it fails to consider the risk compensation aspects.

Interesting stats in that post by dales_rider,but it doesn't change my position. As I said about 12 pages ago, I deem the risk to be so minuscule that multiplying it it by a factor of 2 or 3 is immaterial.

Also some of those stats and quotes support exactly what other people have been saying: that helmets are most effective in "cyclist falling off bike" rather than traffic accidents, and even then only 10% of the accidents involved head injuries that [i]may[/i] have been prevented by a helmet.

A bit over sensitive to being labelled stupid for not wearing helmets even though some respondents also confess to wearing helmets. I also draw my own conclusion.

Over sensitive to being labelled stupid 😆 The diplomacy cores loss is our gain

You complained about being insulted when no one was insulting you and now you want to talk about over sensitive

Loving your work

flippinheckler: if you actually have something to add to the debate then please do.

If you only came here to call people stupid then you've done that. Well done. Mission accomplished, now kindly jog on.

It's great seeing you respond so eagerly to my comments. I tilt my helmet at you.

One thing I have never understood about risk compensation & cycle helmets:
How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking, while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike. Odd that. No matter which way you look at it wearing a helmet is detrimental to cycling (especially if you don't like wearing a helmet) Rather a magical property of helmets.

How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking

while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike.

No matter which way you look at it wearing a helmet is detrimental to cycling

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking, while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike. Odd that.

They're two completely different things.

One is the perception of someone who is perhaps thinking of taking up cycling and weighing up the pros an cons in a rational manner.

The other is the perception of someone already cycling, somebody already committed to it, and perhaps weighing up the risks of giving it some beans on a descent.

We are supposed to be talking road riding JY. Of course risk compensation exits & I agree it plays a massive part in off road riding. The point is that nobody has shown that it is a significant factor in road riding, likewise, nobody has ever proved that wearing a helmet on the road is anything but a response to the danger that people are easily able to perceive as they go about their daily business. It does seem amazing that helmets have a negative effect by both increasing and at the same time decreasing the sense of risk. Until either of these things are shown to be true I will still lean towards the idea that both of these problems are brought up as an argument against helmets by people whose main motivation is that they don't like wearing a helmet.

flippinheckler - Member

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

You did pick out a biased source but do you have a walking helmet? I'll add that I don't wear a helmet on the road but often do mountain biking.

Today, whilst riding the 5 miles or so to Cannock Chase I thought "the good thing about riding to the Chase rather than driving is that you know you haven't forgottten anything".

Then I noticed the wind in my ears was a bit louder than usual, which made me realise I'd forgotten my helmet.

It didn't change a thing. So I'll try not to forget it in future.

GrahamS - Member

Actually I mentioned the Cochrane Review quite a way back along with the Hillman/Adams objections to it, which are basically that it fails to consider the risk compensation aspects.

Yes but not to mention the fact that when studies done on risk compensation are done the following applies.....

In one experimental study, adults accustomed to wearing helmets cycled more slowly without a helmet, but no difference in helmeted and unhelmeted cycling speed was found for cyclists who do not usually wear helmets.

Goverde, Marcel (September–October 2009). "Helmets Make You Bicycle Faster". Annals of Improbable Research 15 (5): 6–9.

that been mentioned before and all it says is that when you remove some safety equipment from folk who choose to use it their behaviour changes and those who dont care dont care - that is bit of a no shit sherlock research tbh
I would like to see a longitudinal study with my hypothesis being that their speed returns to what it was with a helmet if they ride helmetless for a long enough period of time - days,weeks or months
ie helmets dont make you faster but removing PPE makes you slower [ whether the PPE is needed or not is a separate debate]

The research that Dales Rider presents, is logical ie of course a helmet offers more protection than not wearing one, but the stats are incomplete. Ok you may double your chance of head injury not wearing one, but what is the risk in the first place? 1% of all accidents? 60% ? Useless without all the stats to back it up.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work related, 10% sporting related.

So in reality you need to be more careful walking down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work related, 10% sporting related.

So in reality you need to be more careful walking down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

Hardly. The general population (made up predominantly of unfit/pregnant/disabled/fat/lazy/old people) doesn't really do any sport. Even for those who bother to do any sport, time spent doing sport << time spent getting on with the daily grind.

The point is that no one has done a decent trial to prove the benefits of helmet wearing one way or another. Because no one has quantified the risk, we are all just guessing, really. Logically, I think one has to assume that they do [i]some[/i] good in an accident - and for that reason I'll always wear one but as a libertarian I think people can do whatever the hell they like, for whatever reasons.

However - Most helmets these days are light / aero / vented / fashionable so besides cost there isn't a compelling argument against them, apart from a few statistically dubious stats about increasing risk behaviour.

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

Congratulations on entering the debate with such an even handed post. You might want to try and work out who hijacked your account earlier though.

However - Most helmets these days are light / aero / vented / fashionable so besides cost there isn't a compelling argument against them,

Or a compelling argument for them. The so light and aero argument applies to walking helmets but they are not popular. I assess my risk while commuting or touring as so low that a helmet is not needed. DfT stats agree with my assessment. Why should I wear a helmet for a low risk activity like my cycling or walking?

Helmets have been widely available and widely worn for such a long time now, you have to ask, perhaps the reason cycling is statistically safe is not in some way because of helmet use?

OK guys here's a suggestion:

Wear a helmet if you want, don't bother other people about it one way or the other.

I mean, c'mon - are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other? Are you going to stop people in the street and try and change their mind as to whether wearing one or not is a good idea?

Why don't we all have a nice cup of really hot tea [or Elderflower cordial], pass the peace pipe and just leave it here?

I assess my risk while commuting or touring as so low that a helmet is not needed.

The helmet-wearers disagree with that assessment.

The difference between cycling and being a pedestrian is that you usually are't mixing with the cars when you are walking. You have a pavement to yourself. So you are most likely to be injured crossing the road. And if you are careful you can eliminate risk when doing that.

It's not possible to eliminate risk when cycling on the road.

Superficial the only point I was making is that walking is much much higher risk than people think. Ive not seen people walking down the night street wearing pads and helmets, because that would be silly wouldn't it?

Crosshair I don't quite follow, are you suggesting it was unsafe before helmets?

This thread is stupid, as are almost all helmet threads on the internet. However I just felt the need to point out something.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big
hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car
accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work
related, 10% sporting related.
So in reality you need to be more careful walking
down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

What percentage were lion taming related accidents? 0? I'm guessing we can conclude lion taming is safer than driving a car, or walking down the road.

No FD, but every time someone compares cycling to walking in terms of safety, they're arguing as if helmet use doesn't exist. I'm saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

FunkyDunk, what you forget is that a large proportion of those people admitted are either drunk or elderly. It is one of the things people conveniently forget when they try to make out for that walking is risky compared to cycling. Have a look at how many people break bones falling out of bed. Do you think those stats are made up of fit, healthy people?

Helmets have been widely available and widely worn for such a long time now, you have to ask, perhaps the reason cycling is statistically safe is not in some way because of helmet use?

Yet much less safe than the Netherlands or Denmark, where most cyclists don't wear helmets.

I suggest reasons for safety statistics (whether good or bad) don't have much to do with helmet wearing.

Good point.

Hands up who wears a drinking helmet?

I'm saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

So you are suggesting that it was unsafe before helmets? Because that's the only possible conclusion if you attribute the safety of cycling to the helmet.

I took my helmet off for a long road climb at the weekend. TBH, didn't make me noticably cooler than before and for the climb after it I kept it on.

Why do the pro helmet people care if I wear one or not, I don't understand why it would matter to anyone other than me?

The difference between cycling and being a pedestrian is that you usually are't mixing with the cars when you are walking.

I thought we'd agreed that helmets don't generally help when you're hit by a car?

It's not possible to eliminate risk when cycling on the road.

It's not possible to eliminate risk when doing any activity - only a fool would think otherwise.

Why do the pro helmet people care if I wear one or not, I don't understand why it would matter to anyone other than me?

If it were the case that helmets really did make us much safer, then there's an argument that it matters to society - given we all pay for the NHS etc.

I'm guessing we can conclude lion taming is safer than driving a car, or walking down the road.

I see, that's pretty thin really.

I mean, c'mon - are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other? Are you going to stop people in the street and try and change their mind as to whether wearing one or not is a good idea?

This is the problem though. I haven't seen anyone on the non-hats side trying to persuade anyone to not wear a helmet, but plenty of the opposite. IMO this debate isn't really about the efficacy of helmets or other related issues like risk-compensation etc, but about the fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists over a relatively trivial choice of what they wear when riding a bike. I'm not on the non-helmets 'side', but the 'treat everyone with respect, and support other cyclists' side.

I see, that's pretty thin really.

I agree, but only because the benefits of helmets are very debatable. You could make the same argument about car seatbelts...

dazh - Member
I haven't seen anyone on the non-hats side trying to persuade anyone to not wear a helmet, but plenty of the opposite. IMO this debate isn't really about the efficacy of helmets or other related issues like risk-compensation etc, but about the fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists over a relatively trivial choice of what they wear when riding a bike.

Well said...so I am a nutter, stupid and an idiot according to this thread!! But a classic STW thread nonetheless.

'treat everyone with respect

If only....!!

It really is no one else's business.

fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists

teamhurtmore - Member
It really is no one else's business.

Unless you fall off and receive some form of head trauma, at which point it becomes a whole lot of other people's business.

I've not had any other cyclist comment about my lack of a helmet on road however my wife, friends and family all seem to believe that by not wearing one I am trying to commit suicide. Seems odd that those least qualified to comment (very occasional riders) seem to be the most vociferous. This debate reminds me of the religious threads but I'm expected to wear a helmet on faith!

I mean, c'mon - are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other?

Well one person on this thread has mailed me to say they've changed their opinion.

But mainly +1 Wot dazh said. I do [i]mostly[/i] wear a helmet these days, I'm not interested in persuading people that helmets are a [i]bad[/i] idea because I don't think they are, I just want people to think about it properly and be aware of the downsides and counter-arguments.

Because I don't really enjoy the tutting, head-shaking and patronising comments from folk (including non-cyclists!) on the days that I don't bother with a lid.

I'm saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

It's a possibility - but if that was the case wouldn't you see a significant decrease in accidents in places where helmets were made compulsory?

Good point.

Hands up who wears a drinking helmet?

Well one person on this thread has mailed me to say they've changed their opinion.

I do mostly wear a helmet these days, I'm not interested in persuading people that helmets are a bad idea because I don't think they are, I just want people to think about it properly and be aware of the downsides and counter-arguments

I think I realised that for the serious stuff i do be it fast road or proper MTB a lid make sense

To just pootle along the canal at an average of 6 mph with my kids it is not really going to make much difference for me or them*

* i am less sue i will ride sans lid with my kids but you get the point

I think there's real merit in considering the relative benefits / drawbacks of helmet wearing as objectively as you can, even if it doesn't actually change your mind you are at least better equipped with some information and points to mull over rather than accepting the prevailing group opinion without question...

I dislike the insults, name calling or resorting to hyperbolic point scoring and comparisons that threads like this often seem to descend into, it is possible to state you opinion without calling others "Idiots" it is possible to disagree with someone by simply writing [I]"I disagree"[/I] and giving your reasons...

Clearly it's a topic that animates people, that's a good thing IMO.
Earlier in this thread there was discussion on the risk compensation and driver perception issues.
Helmet wearing is obviously a part of the wider road safety issue, quite apart from the injury protection they offer, what are the other implications of wearing a helmet? how is the perception of "Risk" that cycling presents altered as Helmets are now considered almost mandatory, and how drivers attitudes and behaviour towards a cyclist change if they do/don't wear a helmet... as counter-intuitive as the arguments that helmets possibly make cycling "more risky" might appear, they do have some merit.

People also seem to have, by default, focused on the idea of accidents directly involving motor vehicles, MTBing accidents tend to occur through rider misjudgement(s) of speed, terrain or personal ability, are we saying that this is never the case for road cycling?

"Risk" if you want to assess it properly considers both likelihood AND severity of a given incident occurring, while I might agree that the likelihood of an accident occurring on a road Vs MTB ride is possibly less, I believe the potential severity is probably on average a bit higher, thus I would say Risk possibly scores similarly for the two activities...

I would actually love to see a proper risk assessment carried out for both MTBing and Road cycling, I may even try to find an appropriate format and fill one out at some point along with consideration of Hazard Control Measures (ERICPD anyone?)... What most people refer to as doing [I]"my own risk assessments"[/I] are generally a few seconds of weighing up pros/cons and then cracking on.
A proper risk assessment is a pretty useful tool as it scores risk and makes the assessor(s) consider practicable ways to reduce it...

This is the problem though. I haven't seen anyone on the non-hats side trying to persuade anyone to not wear a helmet, but plenty of the opposite. IMO this debate isn't really about the efficacy of helmets or other related issues like risk-compensation etc, but about the fact that a significant number of cyclists feel the need to preach, patronise and sometimes abuse other cyclists over a relatively trivial choice of what they wear when riding a bike. I'm not on the non-helmets 'side', but the 'treat everyone with respect, and support other cyclists' side.

There are huge numbers of people (on helmet threads admittedly) attempting to deride helmets and persuade people not to wear them, utilising arguments about how widespread wearing will lead to compulsion and put people off cycling.

On this thread? Or even huge numbers? I'd suggest they're vastly outnumbered by those who call people who don't wear helmets stupid. You can give me an example to prove me wrong if you like...

while the hats outweigh the non hats in doing this they have not been alone.

An example of a non-hat preaching patronising or abusing, Junkyard?

The thing is, generally the non-hats are people who've actually thought about it more. Of course I'm including myself and people like me in the non-hat category for the sake of this argument - given that I'm very much against compulsion and not terribly in favour of widespread use by casual cyclists, despite the fact I almost always wear one when riding (a bike).

On this thread? Or even huge numbers? I'd suggest they're vastly outnumbered by those who call people who don't wear helmets stupid. You can give me an example to prove me wrong if you like...

rogerthecat - Member

teamhurtmore - Member
It really is no one else's business.

Unless you fall off and receive some form of head trauma, at which point it becomes a whole lot of other people's business.

No, it's still none of their business

If you go to a road riding forum you'll se a lot of anti-helmet stuff, with places like the CTC forum having a marked anti-helmet majority.

Deriding helmet wearers?

I may not have phrased my comment about non-hats having thought about it more very well (I'm not sure I've phrased that very well either, but CBA to fix it). I thought it would get the context from the quote above that I was referring to those commenting on this thread.

Who'd have thought, no TJ and still 16 pages. He'd be so proud.

Who'd have thought, no TJ and still 16 pages. He'd be so proud

He emailed me - he is 😀

An example of a non-hat preaching patronising or abusing, Junkyard?

The thing is,[b] generally the non-hats are people who've actually thought about it more[/b].

Not abuse, not preaching - you reckon it's patronising? Given the use of the word "generally" at the start, and given some of the contributions of the hats, I thought it was fairly factual.

sure lots of the hats think the non hats have not actually though about it either

To be fair its not that bad and I get your general point but it was to easy an internet "win " to resist 😉

There is no doubt the hats have been the largest, loudest and the rudest and by a clear margin though and some have indeed regaled in their refusal to think or read on the subject as it is so simple

Unless you fall off and receive some form of head trauma, at which point it becomes a whole lot of other people's business.

If I fell off, mashed my brains and my wife had to spend the next 50 years feeding me through a tube as I dribble at her, that's other people's business - hers, as well as mine. Hypotehtically, if I were to be too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this, then other people who also care about me could easily be justified in entreating me to do so. For my sake and my wife's.

There is no doubt the hats have been the largest, loudest and the rudest and by a clear margin though

And along comes molgrips to prove the point: [i]"too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this"[/i] 🙄

kilo - Member
No, it's still none of their business

Yes it is.

And along comes molgrips to prove the point: "too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this"

What does that prove? I didn't say all non-hats were pig headed, but undoubtedly some are.

Hypotehtically, if I were to be too pig headed to take any kind of precaution against this,

Such as cycling more slowly?

Yes.

Incidentally I hold back my speed sometimes for that very reason - as well as wearing a helmet.

I've not had chance to ride off road lately.. any riding I've done has been restricted to lugging the kids about.. to and from school, to the park, beach and bimbles along the prom etc and as a result I haven't worn my hat so much (maybe the heat played a part in this too)..

then this morning I realised that by not wearing some sort of head protection I was being a bit **** ish to my family, so I've put it back into service today..

Hope that clears the whole helmet debate up for everyone.. 8)

Incidentally I hold back my speed sometimes for that very reason - as well as wearing a helmet.

So there are times you don't hold back your speed? Why not?

What does that prove? I didn't say all non-hats were pig headed, but undoubtedly some are.

It's nicely indicative of the abuse the Non-Hats receive when they choose not to wear a helmet. See also:

[i]"by not wearing some sort of head protection I was being a bit **** ish"[/i]

🙄

you roll your eyes young man, whilst you've still got voluntary control of 'em.. 😆

I really think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet while cycling on any public road. Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.

Would you drive a car with no seat belt on the assumption that you wont be in an accident? No. So why ride a bike without a helmet on the assumption that you wont be in an accident?

So there are times you don't hold back your speed? Why not?

Hmm.. dunno, I am usually holding back to some extent on downhills or flats. Sometimes I hold back more than others though - if I am on my own, somewhere there's no-one nearby to help me, that kind of thing. Likely consequences of a crash also make me slow down - lots of trees close to the trail or a big drop etc.

I generally go my fastest at trail centres where the trails are somewhat safer and max speed is not all that high.

The point is that sometimes I hold back more than others.

Would you drive a car with no seat belt on the assumption that you wont be in an accident?

Of course they would - they'd just drive slower until they felt safe.

I really think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet while cycling on any public road. Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.

Quite right, because if we all wore helmets, we'd be more like Australia and less like Netherlands...

I really think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet while cycling on any public road.

Even though the evidence is that compulsion would result in less people cycling, and hence cause far greater harm to the overall public health than the odd banged head?

I don't think you'll find many supporters of compulsion here, even amongst the strongly pro-hat posters.

Debating how/if motorists may behave differently when cyclists are wearing a helmet is just silly.

Why's that then?

Hmm.. dunno, I am usually holding back to some extent on downhills or flats. Sometimes I hold back more than others though - if I am on my own, somewhere there's no-one nearby to help me, that kind of thing.

So you're making a risk assessment based on circumstances.

I do the same when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet.