[Closed] No helmet. The urge was strong.

No one can pretend not to fall on a ride

Exactly, that's why accidents are called accidents 😉

Anyone who thinks they can accurately predict when, how and why they will fall off a bicycle is really deluded.

Decide yourself about to wear or not to wear a helmet, but don't try and justify it with some bullshine about risk asessment or rationality, just make your choice and STFU 😉

And anyway I kept my helmet on.....which was nice
[img] [/img]

juan - Member

....specially not TJ (who is probably a poor rider, as he's slower than I am

The Tartan Jesus is a 'racer' now dontcha know 😆

[i]Anyone who thinks they can accurately predict when, how and why they will fall off a bicycle is really deluded.
[/i]

good job no one claimed that then.

juan - Member

Well it comes with the fact that you may take the risks, but we all pay for it. No one can pretend not to fall on a ride specially not TJ (who is probably a poor rider, as he's slower than I am... And I am average less).
Now some people know things better than everyone else, which is very easy when other people pays for your mistakes.

So why is it okay to hurl oneself at 30-40mph down a hillside on a bike with only a helmet for protection? I would imagine that the risk of injury is significantly higher for that, that riding along a Sustrans route without a helmet.

Are you still not putting yourself at risk of injury that, as you put it, other people have to pay for? If not, why not?

I decided not to wear a helmet for this mornings ride, I took no spairs no tools no pump nothing and all was fine until...

I did a small tail whip and got a bloody puncture. I never get punctures!!!

Then on the walk back to the car I realised my forks were only giving me about 50mm!

So conclusive proof if you don't wear a helmet you will brake your bike. 🙁

hilldodger - Member

Decide yourself about to wear or not to wear a helmet, but don't try and justify it with some bullshine about risk asessment or rationality, just make your choice and STFU

Excellent... risk assessments are bull$h*t now, I'm sure the HSE would like to be told this... it'd certainly make their job easier!

;o)

I try hard not to get involved in this well worn debate - but I have to take exception. Of course you can restrain your riding to the point where you never fall off. Or at least so seldom and so mildly that it amounts to the same thing. Risk assessment done correctly is a perfectly good way to go about things.

Light reading; http://cyclehelmets.org/

LOL (knew that was coming)

This "evidence" works on the same level as citing the BNP as experts on immigration. i.e. its a pressure group with a one sided view trying to prove their bias. By that simple fact they have self evidently written off pretty much everything they say as being fundamentally flawed.

So try again Crikey. TJ's been quoting that twaddle for years. Its still twaddle regardless of how often its referred to.

Now then tell me about this ability to pre-select the time place, speed and severity of your offs. Obviously you can do this, as you claim to wear a helmet when its necessary and not when it isn't.

Personally I don't give a toss whether you wear one or not. Its absolutely your call, however please keep away from me when you're riding, as I don't want responsibility for you, and preferably try not to ride where the land owners are concerned about litigation due to the severity of the injuries on their land. I don't need my riding opportunities to become even more restricted than they are now.

Oh yeah, and one other thing, regarding my earlier comments regarding wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. The technology for the constuction of cycle helmets is the same technology as used for M/C helmets, and isn't simply an inch of polystyrene as you claim. So obviously you would be against the wearing of M/c helmets for the same reasons you would be anti cycle ones...... right?

Face it, the choice is yours, and I don't think anyone would dispute your right to make it, but there is no reasoned argument other than free choice. So don't try to justify it with utter crap.

Reading these threads makes me wonder just how frequently are people falling off?

Oh yeah, and one other thing, regarding my earlier comments regarding wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. The technology for the constuction of cycle helmets is the same technology as used for M/C helmets, and isn't simply an inch of polystyrene as you claim.

Erm... you have actually handled a motorcycle helmet I presume... and compared the weight to that of a bike helmet?

Now, I have a Xen at home and that is about an inch of polystyrene with a plastic shell over the outside... that's it.. nothing more.

So what exactly is the technology that is shared between the two?

And just as a little thought... would you make a Sikh with a turban wear a helmet for cycling? :o)

funkynick - Member

Excellent... risk assessments are bull$h*t now, I'm sure the HSE would like to be told this... it'd certainly make their job easier!

Actually many of them are 😉
RA's define the potential risk for using specified objects/materials in a defined situation. It's a little bit more involved than cocking an eye up the trail and think "och aye, cannae be fallin off on this one"

Just like many car/motorcycle 'silly' accidents happen within a few miles of where you live (ie on roads you think you know like the back of your hand) so I would guess that as many bike accidents happen 'messing about on an easy trail' as 'hammering it down the black'.

You can't predict the circumstances or outcome of an accident, you can only take whatever precautions you feel personally happy with, that may be assessing the risk but it's cerainly not a Risk Assessment as defined by any H&S regulators.

So what exactly is the technology that is shared between the two?

A motorcycle helmet has two major parts: the outer shell and the energy-absorbing inner liner. The inner lining is made of expanded polystyrene or EPS, the same stuff used in beer coolers, foam coffee cups, and packing material. Outer shells come in two basic flavors: a resin/fiber composite, such as fiberglass, carbon fiber and Kevlar, or a molded thermoplastic such as ABS or polycarbonate, the same basic stuff used in face shields and F-16 canopies.

The shell is there for a number of reasons. First, it's supposed to protect against pointy things trying to penetrate the EPS—though that almost never happens in a real accident. Second, the shell protects against abrasion, which is a good thing when you're sliding into the chicane at Daytona. Third, it gives Troy Lee a nice, smooth surface to paint dragons on. Riders—and helmet marketers—pay a lot of attention to the outer shell and its material. But the part of the helmet that absorbs most of the energy in a crash is actually the inner liner.

When the helmet hits the road or a curb, the outer shell stops instantly. Inside, your head keeps going until it collides with the liner. When this happens, the liner's job is to bring the head to a gentle stop—if you want your brain to keep working like it does now, that is.

The great thing about EPS is that as it crushes, it absorbs lots of energy at a predictable rate. It doesn't store energy and rebound like a spring, which would be a bad thing because your head would bounce back up, shaking your brain not just once, but twice. EPS actually absorbs the kinetic energy of your moving head, creating a very small amount of heat as the foam collapses.

And just as a little thought... would you make a Sikh with a turban wear a helmet for cycling? :o)

already answered as below:-

Face it, the choice is yours, and I don't think anyone would dispute your right to make it, but there is no reasoned argument other than free choice. So don't try to justify it with utter crap.

I think some people just fail to understand what a risk assessment is. It is not a full prediction of the future, but it is a balanced view on the likelihood of the frequency and severity of potential events.

If I jump on a bike and ride very well inside my limits then both the frequency and severity of accidents drop to very much lower levels - the frequency to virtually never and the potential severity comes way down too (obviously freak outcomes are possible, as they are with walking, running, using stairs etc). Which just leaves the argument about if there is any risk at all then you should wear a helmet - but the logical extension of that argument is that you should avoid all risk and not cycle at all.

Haven't we been here before?

Erm... you have actually handled a motorcycle helmet I presume... and compared the weight to that of a bike helmet?

Erm, yes, I used to race Speedway (both cycle and motor versions) amongst other things.

hilldodger... well, as my other half works in H&S I do actually tend to agree with you there having seen some of the things she has to do on occasion.

Although I certainly don't agree that more bike accidents happen while pootling around at home compared to hammering it down the black run. That's a bit like saying more accidents happen close to home than on the race track! I'm far closer to my limit, and far closer to having an accident, when piling down a trail at speed.

But shouldn't a risk assessment be an assessment of the risk of doing an activity, that then allows you to make a choice whether to do that activity as is, or to do it with added constraints(eg wear a helmet), or not to do it at all.

BB... excellent description of a motorcycle helmet. I'm guessing a cut and paste? ;o)

Now compare with a cycle helmet which has probably less than an inch of polystyrene with a thin plastic outer with gopping great holes in it to let the air in/out. Well, I guess we can agree they are superficially similar though.

On the motorcycle front, they seem to also wear leathers and spine protectors... should these not be worn on a mountain bike as well? Or how about the neck protectors that they downhill guys wear... how far do you take it to make an activity completely safe?

Oh, and you are aware that it's legal for a Sikh with a turban to ride a motorcycle without a helmet aren't you... :o)

Mmmm Speedway....
Colmonoy for sliding, Bell moto 3, wasn't it?.. hiding behind the programme board on the corner, Castrol R, methanol, Bovril and a meat pie?..Carlisle tyres, Jawa, Weslake, rip offs for the rain...wicked.

The 40 odd people on the 1st page of this thread, with their tales of nice bike rides, are irrational, stupid and selfish.

By choosing not to protect their heads from certain types of injury from certain types of potential accidents, they have rolled the dice and risked brain damage, death and the misery of their families. And have done for years, by the sounds of things.

And for what? The pleasure of the sun on their foreheads, the wind in their hair, and an unencumbered view of the sky and the clouds.

****s.

And lo - the ignorant ranters come out.

Rational risk assessments is obviously to difficult for some of you. Seems little point in trying to explain.

hilldodger- You can't predict the circumstances or outcome of an accident, you can only take whatever precautions you feel personally happy with, that may be assessing the risk but it's cerainly not a Risk Assessment as defined by any H&S regulators.

Wrong and ignorant - what a surprise.

A risk assessment is exactly that - an assessment of the level of risk and the severity of that risk - you then make sensible decisions about what you do to mitigate that risk.

Some forms of cycling the level of risk is so low that I am prepared to accept it. Do you wear a helmet to walk to the shops? To get out of the bath? Why not?
Bermbandit - you should look at the cyclemhelmets stuff - such twaddle as research for the TRL. Still - it doesn't agree with your prejudices so it must be twaddle.

congratulations guys = you have resorted to personal attacks and unscientific ranting. Courteous discourse and logical thinking is clearly beyond you.

There is no evidence for cycle helmets reducing injury that stands up to any scrutiny. There is no epidemic of head injuries in non helmeted cyclists. Risk levels are low for some forms of cycling. ( and high for others)

This is what the real state of play is - all your rantings do not alter the proven facts

nedrapier - that is such a superb failure to understand what is being said as to make me assume that you are joking. Very good.

Ned there's far more risks we take everyday that mean are families could suffer. What do you do about them are do you leave a completely dull life. I guess so given the need you have insult others.

[i]Reading these threads makes me wonder just how frequently are people falling off? [/i]

Indeed. 🙂

I have fallen off quite hard 4 times in my last 3 mountain bike rides. On each occasion I was wearing a helmet and gloves.

I have fallen off once in my last (roughly) 2,000 rides on cycle paths, roads, running local errands and commuting. I was wearing a helmet on that particular occasion, but only hit my knee. Of those 2,000 rides I was probably wearing a helmet for 2/3 of them I suppose.

nedrapier

And will continue to do so - the risks are millions to one and the risks are not eliminated by wearing a helmet.

Why should I wear a helmet for a millions to one risk?

I think some people just fail to understand what a risk assessment is. It is not a full prediction of the future, but it is a balanced view on the likelihood of the frequency and severity of potential events.

Agreed, but when the total risk is low (as in severe head injury from riding a bike) then the freak outcomes become a significant factor in the total.

I don't know anyone who's crashed in a predictably dangerous circumstance, all the crashes I've experienced and heard about have been those people may class as freak outcomes......

the misery of their families

I have private health insurance, and my death in service benefits, life insurance and pension death benefits would pay out about £750,000 for my family. If I have a freak accident while going really slowly and not wearing a helmet. They'd also pay out if I was hit by a meteor, or slipped while getting out of the bath. Hope this helps. 🙂

😕 :-)LOL at crikey..

More a case of eyeballs vibrating so much you only see a blur, hanging on for grim death and lots of **** **** ****ity **** **** going on inside said bell helmet. Used to love it, was also cycle speedway team mate to Simon Wigg, but regretably unable to rise to the same heights at the big boys stuff though.

BB... excellent description of a motorcycle helmet. I'm guessing a cut and paste? ;o)

😯 Am I so obviously that shallow?

Well, I guess we can agree they are superficially similar though

I'll take that as a yes then? ..... blimey one thread, two scores....whatever next common sense on STW? ;o)

Four times in the last three rides? Jeepers.

I'm pushing myself glen. 😉

I don't know anyone who's crashed in a predictably dangerous circumstance, all the crashes I've experienced and heard about have been those people may class as freak outcomes......

What you're saying only makes sense if you fail to do any active safety (ride with sensible technique, well within your limits). Plus if you follow what you're saying about freak outcomes you'll wear a helmet to cross the road.

TandemJeremy - Member
A risk assessment is exactly that - an assessment of the level of risk and the severity of that risk - you then make sensible decisions about what you do to mitigate that risk.

Biased and bigoted - again 😛

I was trying to make the distinction that an individual taking a personal decision is far from a risk assessment as understood by H&S professionals.

You are pefectly free to decide for yourself, but don't try to garnish your own personal appraisal of a situation by referring to it as a risk assessment 🙄

I'm pushing myself glen.

Riding without a helmet even to the shops is asking for brain damage or worse.

I am a firm believer that you shouldn't have a chioce, it should be the law, just like wearing a seatbelt.

H&S professionals

Perhaps you could hire yourself out as a [b]Professional[/b] assessor of mountain-biking-related risk to people who lack TJ's confidence in their assessment skills? There'd be a huge market. 😉

Another funny one, dirtynap.

glenp - Member

I don't know anyone who's crashed in a predictably dangerous circumstance, all the crashes I've experienced and heard about have been those people may class as freak outcomes......
That's a lot of crap. Everyone has seen crashes in predictably dangerous circumstances.

Not me, never seen a crash to which I could say 'I saw that coming'

What you're saying only makes sense if you fail to do any active safety (ride with sensible technique, well within your limits). Plus if you follow what you're saying about freak outcomes you'll wear a helmet to cross the road.

Sorry, I was assuming sensible technique as a given 😉
and should have said 'crashes with injurious outcomes' rather than just 'crashes'.

Hilldodger - you are wrong . You clearly do not understand what a risk assessment is - still - don't let that stop you attacking me will you.

One can apply the principles of risk assessment to any activity - and cycling is not different.

Bermbandit - you should look at the cyclemhelmets stuff - such twaddle as research for the TRL. Still - it doesn't agree with your prejudices so it must be twaddle.

I have, and I'd be much more impressed to see unbiased research which doesn't pander to your or their predjudices. Can't see your problem with that statement. TRL may well use it, but that won't be in isolation and it will be part of a properly structured and balanced view.

Hilldodger how did you learn that touching fire can burn you? Did you have a full hse report on it when you were a kid?

i ride 30 miles each morning on the york solar way without my helmet...its bliss. But i always wear it for true off road.

The smell of Castrol R and methanol is the closest thing to a time machine I know, it takes me right back to being 13 again... Magic boxes, remember them?

Helmet threads are like religion, no-one will budge and it always gets personal..

I wear one to avoid comments like those above, I don't believe it will help and am happy to ride with or without it.

Off for a ride now.. 😀

Bermbandit - my point is that they use research from such people as the TRL - not that TRL use it.

All cyclehelmets.org is is a is evidence collated and discussed. So you have the links to the original research that you can follow and then read the discussions.

Its a lot of high quality peer reviewed research linked to on that site. Take your pinch of salt into the discussions on the site of course- it is need as with all such.

In that case hilldodger you just weren't being sufficiently realistic when you were watching the riding/accident. We live and learn, and there are always new occurrences that inform, but accidents mountain biking are largely predictable. Not that they will always happen, but the likelihood in certain circumstances is much higher. The last descent of the day is a classic one - so I would never lead a group into the final singletrack of the day with resting for a minute and having a quick composure check/brain reset. Everyone in our group is always wearing a helmet, but it would be negligent to fail to do the active safety that helps avoid the accident in the first place.

TandemJeremy - Member
Hilldodger - you are wrong . You clearly do not understand what a risk assessment is - still - don't let that stop you attacking me will you.

One can apply the principles of risk assessment to any activity - and cycling is not different.

TJ, you are wrong - I am perfectly aware of what a risk assessment comprises and have written more than I care to recall 😛

I see now you're watering down your claim that you've 'performed a risk assessment' to 'you've applied the principles of a risk assessment' that's much better 😉

Drac - Member
Hilldodger how did you learn that touching fire can burn you?

The hard way 😕

Did you have a full hse report on it when you were a kid?

Nope, neither did we have cycle helmets back in those days 😉

glenp - Member
In that case hilldodger you just weren't being sufficiently realistic when you were watching the riding/accident. We live and learn, and there are always new occurrences that inform, but accidents mountain biking are largely predictable. Not that they will always happen, but the likelihood in certain circumstances is much higher

Yes, you're right - maybe it's that the 'silly' accidents are more memorable.

Anyway, last 'jump of the day' is a good example of predictable risk, any other typical 'it's all going to end in tears' situations have you come across ?

Hilldodger - why do you distort and misquote what I say? you are an ignorant low level troll - You got me to bite once again. Well done. Feel better now?

Nope, neither did we have cycle helmets back in those days

My god... how did you manage to survive?

;o)

It's gotta be a miracle!

In 1994 I had a bad stack. I broke my wrist, tore ligaments in my shoulder, and broke 3 ribs. I also crushed my helmet on one side, and could only see in red and white for about 5mins, after being unconscious for a minute or so, according to my riding partner. I never ride without a helmet. I would have probably died if I hadn't been wearing one.

Never ridden a Scott since, either.

If I see a numpty riding without a helmet (with the exception of riders going uphill, with helmet strapped on them somewhere) I just assume the Darwin principle will take effect.

Stay safe, ride on your limit and wear protection for our dangerous sport.

Remember, you might not bounce......

[i]The hard way[/i]

Precisely. So now you take care and asses the risk.

Same as when you biking you may find away around a certain section to avoid falling off, we do risk assessments everyday have done since you pretty much could crawl. We're not talking full on H&S risk assessments that are a complete pain just a common sense learnt the hard way assessment.

You guys are over complicating things (and why not stop bitching at each other). Live to cycle, not post on the net. Let the scientists deal with such issues via the medium of peer reviewed research, saves us the debate:

Author
Attewell, 2001
Study quality and conclusions
Selection critieria and statistical techniques clearly explained.

Results provide clear evidence of helmet benefits.

Helmets reduce risk of head, brain, facial injury, and death.

Helmet use should be encouraged for all riders.

Author
Kelsch, 1996
Study quality and conclusions
Small series hospitalized cyclists.

Bicycle helmets reduced the incidence and severity of head injuries.

Author
Finvers, 1996
Study quality and conclusions
Strong prospective effect of helmets for serious head injuries.

Protective effect of helmet underestimated due to exclusion of ICU cases. None of the ICU cases wore helmets.

Tertiary care study, not population based.

Author
Acton, 1996
Study quality and conclusions
Oral maxillofacial injuries frequent.

Design modification helmets need such as a lightweight chin protector.

Author
Thompson et al., 1996
Study quality and conclusions
Bicycle helmets are effective for all bicyclists regardless of age and regardless of motor vehicle involvement in the crash.

Largest prospective case-control study of helmet effectiveness to date. 88% response rate.

Author
Thompson et al., 1996
Study quality and conclusions
Helmets protect against upper face and middle face injuries.

Use of two control groups thought to "bracket" the true effect of helmets on risk of facial injury.

General bicycle helmets with chin protection should be developed.

Author
Maimaris et al., 1994
Study quality and conclusions
Good case ascertainment.

Helmet use significantly reduces the risk of sustaining a head injury, regardless of type of bicycle accident.

Some evidence refuting claims that helmet users are either more cautious or take more risks than non-users (8.1% head injury among non-helmeted bicyclists; 9.2% among non-owners; 3.5% among helmet users).

Author
Thomas et al., 1994
Study quality and conclusions
Helmet use significantly reduces the risk of upper head injury and loss of consciousness in a bicycle crash.

Helmet use does not signifiacntly reduce the crude risk of facial injury (no adjusted OR could be calculated from data given).

Who'd have thought all these scientists could be wrong?

Bermbandit - my point is that they use research from such people as the TRL - not that TRL use it.

Apologies, misunderstood your point, and it does say on the website that they seek to advise and inform official bodies.

Regardless, having read through it, I do feel that there is a strong anti helmet bias, which is not representative of my admittedly anecdotal experience. For example, I do personally know of people who have died or been seriously injured cycling whilst not wearing a helmet. I know of none who have had the same whilst wearing one.

As previously stated, its impossible to collate or research why an outcome has not occurred, so no bad outcome = no research, which is why the supporting evidence for helmet wear is not easy to provide. It is however perfectly possible, if anyone bothers to collate information on outcomes when things do happen. I happen to know about what has happened in my locality, and generally, head ground interface without protection has a high bad outcome potential.

Personally, I do beleive that you will find that cycle accidents are not well researched post event, and statistically it seems to get washed over.

glenp: yes.

drac and TJ: sorry, bit subtle.

cyclehelmets.org is a useful resource but it clearly requires a healthy scepticism.

Personally, I do believe that you will find that cycle accidents are not well researched post event.

Inddeed - all a the research on both sides is very poor.

Waderiders post has some of this poor reaearch. The after the fact studies of hospital admissions that he refers to all share one serious flaw - it a "self selecting sample". It only considers cyclists that crash and end up in hospital. This means this type of survey will always exaggerate the effectiveness of helmets

I could easily produce a similar list of research that shows helmets to be of little benefit.

TandemJeremy - Member
Hilldodger - why do you distort and misquote what I say? you are an ignorant low level troll - You got me to bite once again. Well done. Feel better now?

TJ, calling me ignorant is a personal attack - that's surely not in the 'big TJ book of excellence'
As for trolling, well I do get a certain amount of humourous glee from outing internet pedants like you - one minute it's all "TJ and the zen like walk away persona" next minute you're blasting away with both barrels calling people ignorant trolls.

Helmet evangelists: do you wear the best possible head protection available - i.e. full face motorcycle helmets?

If you don’t, why don't you?

Is it because you’ve used the principles of risk assessment to decide that the level of protection is inappropriate to the level of risk from cycling?

Did you conclude that this extra protection was worth sacrificing for the benefits of more venting and lighter weight?

I have done my own personal research on Helmet wearing.

I never use to wear one for about 40 years, started riding off road and realised I came off more than on the road so after a few near misses took to wearing a helmet off road.
Occasionaly rode my road bike without a helmet until one morning 7 years ago, as a last minute thought I put it on for a ride.

Lesson 1
A car hit me from the side [just pulled out] I woke up with the police ambulance in attendance. Needless to say a Met helmet [Tested to Snell] was totaly destroyed.

Lesson 2
Riding out with a bunch on the road and some kind soul held a gate [on a gated road] open for us, I was on the outside at the front and when he let it swing closed it neatly dropped me on the road head first. Out cold for 20 seconds or so. Destroyed another helmet again a Met.

Those 2 occasions have convinced me that to not wear a helmet where there are objective dangers is foolish.

Whan the dangers are subjective I often dont bother wearing a helmet, this also applies to when I'm climbing.

Helmet evangelists: do you wear the best possible head protection available - i.e. full face motorcycle helmets?

If you don’t, why don't you?

Is it because you’ve used the principles of risk assessment to decide that the level of protection is inappropriate to the level of risk from cycling?

Did you conclude that this extra protection was worth sacrificing for the benefits of more venting and lighter weight

Daft argument frankly ned. Different circumstances and issues, for example speed, and besides in my risk assessment I include heat exhaustion so venting seems sensible to me. However to quote the old Bell Helmet ad if you are saying $5 head? get a $5 dollar helmet, then yes, I do get the best piece of equipment I can manage for what I do. Thanks for asking.

I've fell off a lot in the past month or so. None of the times has my head come (that) close to hitting the floor. It's my knees and elbows that take all the pain. Both elbows and one knee are currently a bit ripped up. Still wear the helmet on anything that involves going fast down loose or bumpy stuff though, becuase you never know!

No problem, BB, thanks for calling me daft, then agreeing with me.

yes, I do get the best piece of equipment I can manage for what I do

so you sacrifice protection for weight and venting where appropriate? xc ride, xc helmet? DH day, DH helmet? MX day, MX helmet?

I never mentioned cost.

is there an internet pedant offenders list ?
just wondering....

I think it might be the list of contributors to this thread!

I enjoyed it more on the first page, when it was all about people enjoying themselves. I was glad to see how long it went on before it descended into the usual arguments. And disappointed in myself that I joined in!

Read the post.

No problem, BB, thanks for calling me daft, then agreeing with me.

I didn't, I called your argument daft. Perfectly possible for a very sensible person to deploy a daft argument

yes, I do get the best piece of equipment I can manage for what I do

so you sacrifice protection for weight and venting where appropriate? xc ride, xc helmet? DH day, DH helmet? MX day, MX helmet?

Different circumstances and issues, for example speed, and besides in my risk assessment I include heat exhaustion so venting seems sensible to me.

I never mentioned cost.

And your point is ?

BB... so you do make an assessment of the risk then, it just happens to be different from other peoples assessment. Life would be so dull if we all agreed though.

Now, that wasn't so difficult was it?

:o)

uurrr...

I haven't made a point yet, just asked a question. And I don't think it was a daft one.

The helmet-in-all-circumstances types always suggest that because you can't tell when an accident will happen, and what sort of accident it will be, you should always wear a helmet. You can't risk assess head injuries out of mountain biking, so you should always wear a helmet.

But in buying a helmet, you are making that risk assessment: "I ride a lot in summer, and not that fast, so I'll be OK with this uber vented xc lid with no chin guard"

Unless you wear the highest protection helmet you can find (hands up if you do?), you've made a risk assessment about your likehood of injury and giving up some protection for some comfort.

That's not stupid, deluded, irrational or selfish. It's a decision, your decision, and you went through the same mental steps to get there as someone who decides to give up a little more protection for a little more comfort.

[img] [/img]

the other night i managed to take my helmet off, hook it on the stem, get my phone out of my pocket, take a photo, put the phone back in my pocket all whilst grinding up a long boring road climb. at the top I managed to put it back on, and carry on riding.

crazy huh. i could have died....

BB... so you do make an assessment of the risk then, it just happens to be different from other peoples assessment. Life would be so dull if we all agreed though.

Now, that wasn't so difficult was it?

Did I ever say otherwise? All I said was I envy the zenlike ability to foresee a stack. Which in fact goes back to my previous point that nobody goes out on a ride having decided that today is the day for a stack. Its an unforeseen event.

I haven't made a point yet, just asked a question.

I think you did, it went like this

I never mentioned cost.

And your point is ?

You introduced the element of cost that had nothing to do with what I had been saying.

and unless you wear the highest rated MX lid available, you have used you r own ability, zen like or not, to foresee the types of falls you're likely to encounter and chosen your lid accordingly. Same as everyone else, even those whove chosen a not-a-helmet helmet.

If quoting a 1960's helmet advert to illustrate a point is mentioning cost then you've got me. The point being that I buy the best helmet I can for the purpose I want it for. Sorry if that wasn't clear for you.

and unless you wear the highest rated MX lid available, you have used you r own ability, zen like or not, to foresee the types of falls you're likely to encounter and chosen your lid accordingly. Same as everyone else, even those whove chosen a not-a-helmet helmet.

And your point is ?

All I said was I envy the zenlike ability to foresee a stack. Which in fact goes back to my previous point that nobody goes out on a ride having decided that today is the day for a stack. Its an unforeseen event.

Of course its an unforsen event - but what is important also is how likely is the crash?

Its the ability to decide the level of risk and make rational decisions. Cycling is generally safe but Some forms of cycling carry more risk than others. We all make decisions about what level of risk is acceptable. Riding a WC DH run helmetless seems rather stupid - but full on DH gear on a canal towpath seems rather OTT. So inbetween those two extremes we all make decisions about what is a sensible level of protection for that ride.

When I am pootling along local easy paths then I know that the risk of having a serious head injury that would be prevented by a helmet are so low that I am prepared to accept it.

and unless you wear the highest rated MX lid available, you have used you r own ability, zen like or not, to foresee the types of falls you're likely to encounter and chosen your lid accordingly. Same as everyone else, even those whove chosen a not-a-helmet helmet.

And your point is ?

I think that's it, actually. Can we stop now?

i wear a helmet as a safety device for others as it stops glare from my slaphead dazzling oncoming road users...

Actually don't think I've ever disagreed with that TJ. My beef is this nonsense regarding helmets don't reduce the risk of head damage, cause injuries etc etc. Not for me to tell you what to do, except insomuch as not really wanting to ride with helmetless folks.

I would say here and now though, that I've never once foreseen any of the numerous stacks that I've had over 40 years or so of cycling. So on balance I wear a lid every time I ride a bike. Been knocked down on the road 4 times, off-road I've broken numerous ribs, collar bones on several occasions, broken my wrist once and assorted other less serious events, but never suffered any serious head injury despite writing off 3 helmets to date.

Berm Bandit - Member

Actually don't think I've ever disagreed with that TJ. My beef is this nonsense regarding helmets don't reduce the risk of head damage, cause injuries etc etc. Not for me to tell you what to do, except insomuch as not really wanting to ride with helmetless folks.

Trouble is - that is not nonsense either. It s different point but linked. Helmets provide far less protection than many folk think and in some cases they can make injury worse. How big the "some" is is debatable but the effect is proven to be there. Up to 30% in one piece of research (TRL)

Reading these threads makes me wonder just how frequently are people falling off?

I crash a lot, and have done for many many years but while riding XC I'd be unlucky to have a proper crash more than about once every 6 months, on the Road it's almost never, jumping again almost never (I know how/when to bail, but wouldn't call that a crash), riding DH I'd expect to crash almost every time I ride a proper DH track (or I wouldn't be pushing myself at all).
Crashing/bailing is a skill that needs to be used to stay good at. I'd say on average most competitors racing DH at Glencoe last weekend crashed way more times than they rode the chairlift up and most would be expecting to whereas most people on here probably find crashing a complete surprise and don't even understand why it happened.

i ride a bike almost every day without a helmet

Racing is a different matter. For normal trail riding for enjoyment, even if you like to ride fairly fast, I wouldn't want to be crashing at all. Having said that I have lost the front twice in the last few years (nothing serious, wet grass etc), plus I've had a prat fall whilst mucking about in the car park. And that's it for as long as I can remember. Certainly don't know when the last time I went over the front was. Years and years ago. However, I don't mind slowing down to go fast, if you know what I mean.

TandemJeremy - Member
The after the fact studies of hospital admissions that he refers to all share one serious flaw - it a "self selecting sample". It only considers cyclists that crash and end up in hospital.

As someone with "scientific training" you should know that's irrelevant if the question you're asking is "do helmets reduce the severity of injury in cyclists hospitalised after accidents where they hit their head", which appears to be the question most of those papers were asking. Also, you could just as easily argue that it underestimates helmet effectiveness because maybe a lot of people who land on their heads wearing a helmet don't need to go to hospital at all.

Anyway, still waiting for the list of references supporting your argument. Over to you...

ALF - go read the cyclehelmets.org stuff. I am not saying its all true but some thought provoking stuff.

[url= http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html ]a critique of the cochrane review[/url] This discusses the limititions of the sort of research that relies on after the event hospital admissions.

Plenty of references to follow if you are intested

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html

Aninteresting paper http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1149.html

Glen - I haven't raced in over 5 years. Your description of how you ride sound makes you sound like a right mincer TBH.

That the same cyclehelmets.org you described as

cyclehelmets.org is a useful resource but it clearly requires a healthy scepticism.

🙂 Cheap shot I appreciate, but couldn't resist it.