[Closed] The urge to ditch the lid........

Any thoughts on what he would have got without the helmet on?

This?

He was fine after a day or two. Had he been wearing a helmet I'm sure he'd be saying a helmet saved his life.

Helmets are over-rated.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Any [s]thoughts [/s] [i]pointless guesswork or speculation[/i] on what he would have got without the helmet on?

Not from me.

My crystal ball is at the menders.

I was just thinking about the times I or friends of mine ended up with head injuries. Almost every story starts with, "We were really drunk and then..."

No legitimate excuse not to wear a helmet in the pub.

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]

Junkyard - lazarus
If I wont go over 6 mph on a traffic free route then I will be as safe as running

I presume that was intended as evidence confirming JY's point. I broke my wrist playing football. I know somebody who broke their arm whilst out running (also a broken arm from falling off the platform of a disused railway station, though that did involve alcohol). In none of those cases were the people wearing helmets and none of them got head injuries.

As I've mentioned before, I don't wear a helmet for the majority of my cycling trips (I'm sure JY has noted my careful use of words, even if nobody else has 😉 )

Absolutely no excuse not to wear a lid.

I don't need an excuse, Colin.

I'll always wear mine on a 'proper' ride or for commuting. I'll sometimes take it off for a long hot climb on a easy trail and often not bother for a gentle ride to the pub along the towpath with the Mrs.

It's all about the odds.

[img] [/img]

http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/

The evidence shows that for normal on road cycling helmets make very little difference.

In Australia pedestrian and cyclist fatalities tracked each other despite a vast increase in cycle helmet wearing.

[img] ?noCache=1441141986[/img]

Only 3 pages, amateurs, TJ would have had this up to at least 6 by now.

I survived a low speed sitdown in the kitchen a few minutes back.
Thankfully this was protected my bottom at the time.
[img] [/img]

Can you imagine what state my arse would have been in without it?

Well, I've just spent £600 on some protective headgear:

[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5831/20433312354_9935a2db85_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5831/20433312354_9935a2db85_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Never bothered with a bike helmet, though - in 33 years of riding bicycles I've never hit my head hard, whereas I have hit it hard doing lots of other things. Climbing trees (well, falling out of them), caving, martial arts, stuff like that.

I don't use mine day to day. That's 4 or 5 days a week, 20 + miles on gravel. Come the winter when it's dark I dig it out. The thought of running into a very black and solid boar on a route that's much less well travelled on cold dark winter nights, at least when solo makes the difference. Road riding depends on the route. Solo in the back lanes, no. Groups, major roads, winter , yes.
Time trialling, usually but if I had an aero bike, helmet and talent I would.
Didn't use one when climbing on crags but did on the big hills. Loose rock and prospect of tumbling falls made the difference there.
Generation thing I suppose. Didn't own a helmet at all until 11 years ago and the road one came along about 6.
Then again I drove for years before the seat belt law so didn't use that and still don't round the quite lanes, nipping up the road or off public roads.
Fully see a benefit but prepared to play the odds.
Very much of the belief that its up to you but completely hate the preachers.

Ianmunro
Bet you could flog that to Peter Sagan.

dont wear one for my 1.5 mile (round trip) commute along 90% official cycle route at 6am. dont wear one to pop the shops, walk the dog or take kids to the park either but always for a proper off road ride.

however saying that ive got a new SP Bushwhacker and that thing is so hot ive taken to hanging on my bars when climbing! so the urge to ditch it completely is pretty strong.

Had my first serious off road crash in ages last week, face plant OTB. wearing a helmet...but also had my lights on it, I'm not sure that the pain in my neck and shoulders isn't from the light digging into the dirt and stopping dead. I managed to put a graze on the bridge of my nose and bite my lip pretty badly.

TBH, I'm not sure that the helmet provided any real protection, as I cleverly used my face a brake.

Any thoughts on what he would have got without the helmet on?

Laid? 😀

IGMC.

I do or don't wear my helmet based on risk and experience.

Might as well give yourself every chance you can, sure it might not protect you much if you go under a bus, but if I hit a tree or go off the back I'd rather my head had something between me and the ground

I'm with Dennis........

[img] [/img]

If he had brakes on his bike, he might not need a helmet so much.

I got hit by a car coming home from work and when reporting the accident to the police, the first thing I was asked was " were you wearing a helmet?" I replied that I was and the PC went on to explain that the drivers insurance company would argue that not wearing a helmet indicates that the cyclist is not considering and maintaining their own safety! Regardless of this, I always wear a helmet and know that they have saved me from more serious injury more than once.

experience and/or ability counts for nowt!

Utter tosh. some people are far more likely to crash than others. Ask an insurance company why premiums for young inexperienced drivers are so high.

I've been riding on and off for over 40 years without an injury cycling accident. In that time I've had to attend A&E for a couple of work related incidents, and I had a cut leg in a hillwalking slip. The only head injuries I've had are from low ceiling joists and cupboard doors left open.

For an experienced cyclist who puts a bit of thought into safe riding it really isn't dangerous. Anyone who regularly crashes in normal utility cycling/commuting/touring is doing something wrong.

the PC went on to explain that the drivers insurance company would argue that not wearing a helmet indicates that the cyclist is not considering and maintaining their own safety!

And that kind of contributory negligence bollocks has to be fought against at every turn.

It's only a small step from "he wasn't wearing a helmet so he wasn't being safe" to "he was riding on a road with cars and lorries so he wasn't being safe".

I got hit by a car coming home from work and when reporting the accident to the police, the first thing I was asked was " were you wearing a helmet?" I replied that I was and the PC went on to explain that the drivers insurance company would argue that not wearing a helmet indicates that the cyclist is not considering and maintaining their own safety!

If he had brakes on his bike, he might not need a helmet so much.

Clearly, he's riding a Strika.....with a coaster brake. 8)

In one cycling case in 2001 at the High Court in Newcastle, A (a child) v Shorrock, a QC tried repeatedly to persuade some neurosurgeons, and a technical expert, to state that one must logically be safer wearing a cycle helmet than without; all three refused to so agree, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made.

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/recent-cases

In Australia pedestrian and cyclist fatalities tracked each other despite a vast increase in cycle helmet wearing.

what about minor injuries? a helmet won't protect you getting squashed by a truck but it will protect/reduce impact damage from a lot of crashes.

I can't remember the last time I fell off on the road but I still wear a helmet, I also can't remember the last time the seat belt in my car was used in anger either.

I've passed a quy on the local trails a few times who has a lid that he keeps on his handle bar! It's almost like it's mounted to the stem? I don't see the point in that at all

On the mendips? If so it could be me.

I often strap my helmet to my bars when on fire road climbs but put put it back on when my pace goes above 1 mph*

*my average fire road climb pace

For an experienced cyclist who puts a bit of thought into safe riding it really isn't dangerous.

Until a driver turns right across you and you hit the side of the car square on at 20 mph. My helmet did a fine job of decelerating my brain by crushing the foam cells enough to prevent injury. The six facial fractures below the helmet line make a case for a downhill lid! My bike was not so lucky and I get what's left of it back today.

I always wear one. In winter I also wear a thermal insert and have failed to notice on occasion that I hadn't put my helmet over the top. Mine are so comfortable I think it a non-issue.

Binned it hard on my morning commute today, nothing technical, just front wheel wash out after popping of a curb and hit a patch of slimy dirt on landing. Aside from some serious road rash I hit my head hard, helmet cracked in 3 places. I'm pretty sure that I'd be in hospital now rather than at my desk. So my conclusion, I'll keep the lid.

I seem to wear a cap and helmet on the road bike, but recently not wearing a helmet on the mtb and today's ride maximum speed 40 mph on the mtb and I should no better having split two mtb helmets over the years with the OTB routine. I honestly think I ride faster without it.

what about minor injuries? a helmet won't protect you getting squashed by a truck but it will protect/reduce impact damage from a lot of crashes.

No minor head injuries in more than 4 decades cycling helmet free. If you have a lot of crashes your choice may differ.

Just spent a week cycling around Holland. Surprisingly enough it was Mrs INVG who suggested it wasn't worth taking the helmets with us because nobody wears one over there. The interesting thing for me as a habitual wearer of helmets was how little I noticed not having one on. Dunno why people get so fussed about having one on, modern helmets are so light and well ventilated, unless you are inclined to hysterically froth about how horrible they are I'm surprised that anyone would have a problem with them.

Until a driver turns right across you and you hit the side of the car square on at 20 mph.

Hasn't happened yet. I've always been able to avoid hitting cars that have made mistakes. I'm either better than you or luckier. I'd probably not be doing 20mph in circumstances where there was a possibility of an oncoming vehicle turning across my path.

(TiRed, don't take this personally, this could be aimed at any of many thousands of people…)

For an experienced cyclist who puts a bit of thought into safe riding it really isn't dangerous.

Until a driver turns right across you and you hit the side of the car square on at 20 mph. My helmet did a fine job of decelerating my brain by crushing the foam cells enough to prevent injury. The six facial fractures below the helmet line make a case for a downhill lid!

And it's only at this point…

My bike was not so lucky and I get what's left of it back today.

…that your post ceases to be absolutely, entirely, [i]perfectly[/i] applicable to crossing the road on foot or even walking on the pavement. Or, for that matter, driving a car.

I always wear one.

I'll bet everything I own that's a lie. I bet you pretty much only wear one when you're on a bicycle.

Well that's true. I don't always wear one in the absence of a bike. But sometimes shit just happens and in two instances this year I've benefited from wearing one. I was blameless in both of those (one was a race). As I said, I don't notice that I'm wearing my helmet. I'm also not in favour of compulsion.

…that your post ceases to be absolutely, entirely, perfectly applicable to crossing the road on foot or even walking on the pavement. Or, for that matter, driving a car.

If you take a risk per hour you would need to cross a lot of roads to get close to the risk of riding on the road for 20km.

But cycling is safe. For example the well documented Boris Bikes which are probably used in a riskier than average environment with a mixture of experienced and inexperienced riders had clocked up approx 34 million miles before the first fatality.

http://understandinguncertainty.org/fatality-risk-boris-bikes

A risk that is pretty close to zero. Putting that in perspective I'm now (mid 50s) fast approaching the point where every year I have a 1% chance of dying. Compared to other risks in life road cycling is pretty trivial.

[img] [/img]

And don't forget you don't need to be on the road for a car to kill you.

Motor vehicles kill pedestrians on pavements or verges at a rate of about 40 a year.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/aug/18/bike-blog-pavement

But cycling is safe. For example the well documented Boris Bikes which are probably used in a riskier than average environment with a mixture of experienced and inexperienced riders had clocked up approx 34 million miles before the first fatality

I didn't wear one when going to the shops for a bit, but then my commuter started having a lot of failures and though the riding wasn't gnarr in the sligtest, I kept having worries about when things would go pop so started to wear one all the time on the bike (and eventually got a new commuter).

But I don't wear one when climbing step ladders. And I don't think my helmet use is scientific.

Just spent a week cycling around Holland ... I'm surprised that anyone would have a problem with them.

You've just spent a week cycling around Holland where no-one wears a helmet, and your conclusion is that everyone should wear helmets?

Isn't the logical conclusion that helmets aren't necessary for city riding?

Just because a risk is trivial doesn't mean it's not worth considering

It kind of does mean exactly that, doesn't it?

no, from a H&S/risk assessment point of view it's still a risk, all cycling isn't the same, the sort of incidents you will get on a borris bike are most likely low speed and could well be car hits rider etc. compare that to popping off at 35mph and bouncing round a bit while you scrape yourself down the tarmac or glmipse the rocks coming at you on the trail.

Except when on the road bike you spend 99% of the riding time in the road, with cars. The exposure is much greater than crossing the road where you have a much greater control of the variables and walking on the pavement where there are a lot less cars driving these days.
If you take a risk per hour you would need to cross a lot of roads to get close to the risk of riding on the road for 20km.

But the per-mile fatality rate for pedestrians in road collisions is actually higher than that for cyclists. Granted, per hour it's lower because walking takes longer, but on that broad statistical basis I have less chance of being killed if I cycle to the station than I do if I walk.

Obviously, it's not that simple. But it's a little too easy to perceive walking as more safe than it really is and cycling less.

I still choose to protect the one part of me that doesn't heal well and doesn't respond well to being hit on the floor at speed.

You wouldn't include, say, your spinal column in that description?

no, from a H&S/risk assessment point of view it's still a risk

Of course. But "trivial" does rather imply that it may not be a risk that warrants mitigation. I mean, I infer that you're of the opinion that the risk of being hit by a car while on foot is "trivial". It exists, of course; it's "still a risk". But you don't mitigate against it, because you consider it to be trivial.

Of course. But "trivial" does rather imply that it may not be a risk that warrants mitigation. I mean, I infer that you're of the opinion that the risk of being hit by a car while on foot is "trivial". It exists, of course; it's "still a risk". But you don't mitigate against it, because you consider it to be trivial.

Cars are not the only issue for cyclists, falling off due to rider error etc. Not everyone is bimbling round town. Wrapping cycling up as one thing might be nice but it's not.

there are zero drawbacks to wearing a lid

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I'll consider it, I've hit my head enough to be a fan.

Same two points as always with a helmet discussion.

Do helmets actually work
No scientific testing or evidence and remains anecdotal. This could be addressed if ever enough interest/funding

Do I need to wear a helmet when cycling (with assumption they actually do offer some protection)
The statistics/information is out there and can be used for the individual to assess the risk.

So all we are left with is the risk assessment which points towards no need to wear one. If an individual wants to ignore that or feels their risk is higher then wear a helmet, just as they can when doing anything thing else (walking down icy pavement) but don't make it law and don't tell everyone else they should wear one.

Just spent a week cycling around Holland. Surprisingly enough it was Mrs INVG who suggested [b]it wasn't worth taking the helmets with us because nobody wears one over there.[/b]

If no other post demonstrates that people's perception of whether or not wearing a helmet is necessary often isn't based on objective logic it's surely this one...

Cars are not the only issue for cyclists, falling off due to rider error etc. Not everyone is bimbling round town. Wrapping cycling up as one thing might be nice but it's not.

Well, exactly. Change "not everyone is bimbling round town" to "not everyone is trying to get a Strava KOM" and this very point undermine the "bike ergo helmet" argument as much as it does the "no-one can benefit from a helmet" one.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I'll consider it, I've hit my head enough to be a fan.

And a vast number of people who ride bikes will never travel at 45mph and will never hit their head.

Well, exactly. Change "not everyone is bimbling round town" to "not everyone is trying to get a Strava KOM" and this very point undermine the "bike ergo helmet" argument as much as it does the "no-one can benefit from a helmet" one.

The problem with the helmet discussion is the anecdotes. No-one tells the story of the time they were riding along and didn't fall off. No-one tells the story of the time they were wearing a helmet, hit their head, and died anyway. The only stories that are told are the subset of situations where someone hit their head and survived.

And then, the helmet is always given credit. "The helmet was smashed in half, that could have been my head!" Well, you could say the same thing if you'd been wearing an eggbox on your head - "Look, the eggbox is totally crushed, it must have saved my life!"

The problem with the helmet discussion is the anecdotes. No-one tells the story of the time they were riding along and didn't fall off. No-one tells the story of the time they were wearing a helmet, hit their head, and di[e]d anyway. the only stories that are told are the subset of situations where someone hit their head and survived. And then, the helmet is always given credit.

Ta-dah:

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-collision-that-never-happened/

I did read somewhere that not wearing a lid on the road can mean greater consideration from motorists due to the perceived vulnerability of not having a lid on. It could be due to standing out, like if you were to wander around a construction site without a high vis or hard hat, you stick out like a sore thumb.
Either way I've been trying no lid on the road again and whilst not scientific, I do seem to get more space and fewer SMIDSY's.

I did read somewhere that not wearing a lid on the road can mean greater consideration from motorists due to the perceived vulnerability of not having a lid on. It could be due to standing out,

"Ever-quoted as perfect" is rather a straw man. I'm sure some people do ignorantly treat it as irrefutable evidence, much as some treat anecdotes as cast-iron proofs, but mostly I've seen phrases like "there is some evidence that…" or "there is a study which suggests that…".

First party risk compensation is a pretty well-documented behaviour; third party risk compensation seems not unreasonable. It would certainly be nice to have more data, though.

I always wear one on the bike now after a crash a few months ago cycling uphill. Cracked the helmet completely up the back and I walked away with a bit less skin on my elbow and legs and a bit of a headache. I am positive that without the helmet taking the impact, I'd have needed a hospital visit. Would I have died, likely not. Would I have suffered brain damage, probably not. I'm sure I saved some pain and unpleasantness though.

Ta-dah:

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-collision-that-never-happened/

I've seen that video before and I thought then that the bloke never needed to have that crash. If you've ever ridden or driven or walked anywhere you've see that behaviour from drivers and know that a pull-out is likely.

The problem with the helmet discussion is the anecdotes

In the words of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald ]Abraham Wald[/url]... "put the armour where the bullets aren't". If cyclists kept returning from accidents with undamaged heads, that's what Wald would say you should protect. An antidote to anecdote. I quite like it.

I did read somewhere that not wearing a lid on the road can mean greater consideration from motorists due to the perceived vulnerability of not having a lid on. It could be due to standing out, like if you were to wander around a construction site without a high vis or hard hat, you stick out like a sore thumb.
Either way I've been trying no lid on the road again and whilst not scientific, I do seem to get more space and fewer SMIDSY's.

I've been experimenting with the non-bikey look for some time now and it makes a noticeable difference [u]in my experience[/u]. It's not a scientific experiment, sure, but the evidence of a lack of close passes and drivers waiting for a space in approaching traffic before passing has convinced me that dressing up in the full garb seems to bring about the opposite behaviour in motorists. I have no idea why.

So yeah, I agree with you based on personal experience, not from an article about a study or anything.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I'll consider it, I've hit my head enough to be a fan.

Your full quote

Just because a risk is trivial doesn't mean it's not worth considering, for me there are zero drawbacks to wearing a lid,

I am sure we can all agree that a head injury from a chair does actually occur and that the risk of is trivial hence most folk dont wear a helmet.
Given there is "no drawback" to wearing it you must be wearing it at your desk as you wear it when you face "trivial risks"?

Making up a scenario where the risks - technically its the effect of the risk- is high is just moving the goalposts.

SO do you wear it for the trivial risk of banging your head falling off a chair?

Much of our cycling is as dangerous as walking or having a shower
Much of it is far more dangerous than that off road down rocky descents . 45 mph on the road etc

As the risk increase the likely hood of me wearing a helmet increases

I see no need to wear it for low risks be it on a bike on foot or in the shower.

WHOOSH

WTF is that all about, chuckles? You seem to be writing it quite a bit recently...

So I said something that teasel did not like
That really is a turn up for the books

Out of my utmost respect for you I have deleted it.
Respectfully I am not even making any effort to annoy you so imagine what will happen if I really try 😉
You have made your point in numerous threads for and its most unlikely you are going to start liking me or I will have a personality change in the next few days.

How would you like to deal with this
Constant bickering/sniping or respectful ignorance? So far you have done the former and I am drifting from the later to the former

Bless you, you little ray of sunshine.

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I'll consider it, I've hit my head enough to be a fan.

I knew someone who died from head injuries sustained falling down the stairs.
I knew someone who died from head injuries sustained in a car accident.
I knew someone who died from head injuries sustained being run over while crossing the road.

Not one person has suggested that they should have been wearing a helmet.

certainly, while riding my bike I've clipped my head on low branches, smacked my head on rocks, thankfully not a bad road one yet but touch wood. All the above cases doesn't mean that wearing a helmet while cycling wont help and isn't a good idea, listing other ways to get head injuries doesn't mean that they can't be useful cycling.

Respectfully I am not even making any effort to annoy you so imagine what will happen if I really try
You have made your point in numerous threads for and its most unlikely you are going to start liking me or I will have a personality change in the next few days.

How would you like to deal with this
Constant bickering/sniping or respectful ignorance? So far you have done the former and I am drifting from the later to the former

Nice edit. TL;DNR

when my chair travels at up to 45mph over tarmac and off road at speed I'll consider it, I've hit my head enough to be a fan.

Obviously helmets have benefits for the accident prone. Avoiding some cuts and bruises. Cyclists usually need the help of a motor vehicle to be killed though. Helmets are of little use when a car hits you. Even helmet makers don't claim they are. They are tested in 12mph impacts. A 48mph impact has 16 times the energy to deal with.

In this crash a car killed 4 helmeted riders in one go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm

Much of it is far more dangerous than that off road down rocky descents . 45 mph on the road etc

As the risk increase the likelihood of me wearing a helmet increases

The risk isn't just the severity of the harm though, it's the combination of that and the likelihood of it occurring - so the severity of the injury likely to be incurred falling off while going down a rocky descent, slowly, may well be far less than the severity of the injury likely to be incurred if it goes wrong while doing 45 mph on a road, but balancing that, the likelihood is much greater that the harm will occur while doing the rocky descent, which changes the relative significance of the risk.

In a workplace H&S setting you see this mistake all the time - people get fixated on the catastrophic things that are very, very unlikely to happen, and meanwhile lots of work time (and money) is lost through injury caused by people tripping over loose carpet or stray wires, lifting boxes badly etc.

All the above cases doesn't mean that wearing a helmet while cycling wont help and isn't a good idea, listing other ways to get head injuries doesn't mean that they can't be useful cycling.

Personally, and its one of the few areas where STW changed my opinion, I could not come up with a good explanation so I started riding without a lid when the risk was low.

Accidents can happen anytime but if I am pootling along a canal at 6 ,mph with my kids on a bike why would I wear a helmet on a bike but not if running?

Interesting one this, I nearly always wear a lid.
Though on ocasions I dont.
Wednesdy night, slow ride [ 8 MPH ] of 300 metres on road a tootle around grass/woods all to check out a cyclo cross route I'll be building shortly. Did I need a helmet ? I didt think so.
However 1/2 an hour later and it was a different story full on cyclocross training with 14 others wheels touching shoulder barging. Definately needed the insurance of a helmet.
Its always your choice just hope you all make the right one.

listing other ways to get head injuries doesn't mean that they can't be useful cycling.

Of course not (but then I've not seen anyone claim definitively that they can't; please stop with the straw men). What it does is help highlight the [lack of] thought process of "being on a bicycle must inherently present a risk of a nature that warrants a helmet whilst being anywhere other than on a bicycle must not".

In a workplace HnS setting you see this mistake all the time - people get fixated on the catastrophic things that are very, very unlikely to happen, and meanwhile lots of work time (and money) is lost through injury caused by people tripping over loose carpet or stray wires, lifting boxes badly etc.

I think that whether to wear a helmet or not is not a straightforward decision.

Someone said that it's always safer to wear a helmet than not to wear one. [url= http://www.john-adams.co.uk ]This guy[/url] made a career explaining how, because of the risk compensation effect (people adjusting their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk) benefits of seat belts were neutralised by more risky behaviour of drivers. I think there is [url= http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html ]more than just anecdotal evidence[/url] that this effect applies to cyclists as well.

And then, the helmet is always given credit. "The helmet was smashed in half, that could have been my head!" Well, you could say the same thing if you'd been wearing an eggbox on your head - "Look, the eggbox is totally crushed, it must have saved my life!"

Some other protective items that the binarists might like to consider (bread is not currently on the list):

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/reference/lifesavers/

[quote=Junkyard ]Personally, and its one of the few areas where STW changed my opinion, I could not come up with a good explanation so I started riding without a lid when the risk was low.

I'm now curious whether that was TJ or me* - or just a combination of all the arguments.

*not being smug if so, simply amused, because I almost always wear a helmet when riding a bike - the majority of my mileage without this year was spent riding with you!