http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Feedback on Spokes' stance on helmet compulsion in events en Fri, 15 May 2026 10:07:14 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113941 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:58:08 +0000 chdot 113941@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've deleted last two posts as they are off the topic. </p> <p>At the risk of appearing 'too dictatorial' this is not the thread for debating 'new helmet evidence'. </p> <p>If anyone <em>really</em> wants another thread on 'the helmet debate' then start one. </p> <p>I suspect it will rapidly descent into 'proves my point' v 'who paid for research/peer reviewed it?'</p> <p>Personal choice and all that. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113932 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:30:07 +0000 Arellcat 113932@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>You get a blow to the head, it WILL absorb some of the force. Every other argument is open to debate.</em></p> <p>The operative point being 'some'. The rest can be transferred to rotation, which may cause additional trauma that would not otherwise occur (Edit: as WC noted while I was typing). But without the ability to conduct identical real world tests involving involuntary human responses with and without, there is always a risk to wearing and there is always risk to not wearing.</p> <p><em>With kids, I think the situation is different - they're more likely to fall off, have softer heads, and will be going much much slower adding to the efficacity of the helmet.</em></p> <p>But our parents learned to ride a bicycle without helmets. Most of <em>us*</em> learned to ride a bicycle without a helmet. For crying out loud, most of my childhood and that of my friends was spent in a huge disused sandpit while we did our best to bend our bikes, and we all fell off from time to time. I'm pretty sure none of us brained our damage.</p> <p>I still support Spokes' decision. An event organiser cannot and should not micromanage the behaviour of every participant.</p> <p>* other ages are available. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113931 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:29:13 +0000 chdot 113931@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>CCE thread drift is expected</p> <p>But</p> <p>Just to remind -</p> <p>Thread started being about Spokes not advertising helmet <em>only</em> events. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113928 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:25:59 +0000 rust 113928@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>the speed we walk at is so much slower, there is less risk and therefore less need for a helmet</em></p> <p>The speed is slower so a helmet is more likely to work.</p> <p>There are a number of fatal head injuries caused by pedestrians hitting their heads on the ground - it seems often as the result of fights, which slightly invalidates my argument as fights can be avoided. However it does demonstrate the potentially fatal impact of even a no-speed fall to the ground. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113926 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:25:15 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 113926@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Fair enough (and thanks for coming back to clarify) - the thing is everyone's perception of the relative danger, and so need to wear a helmet, is different. I'd hazard a guess, from the descriptions above, that I'd fall into the 'silly' camp given some of the roads I ride on (though none as busy or big as Queensferry Road).</p> <p>Debating the actual efficacy of helmets is, of course, the other factor, and uber-contentious at that. It's undoubted that a helmet will, by its very nature, absorb some 'energy' (though I think the wee kids example of putting an egg into a wee helmet is a little simplistic). There <em>are</em> arguments that helmets can cause rotational injuries (with <em>some</em> medical back up), which again is probably natural because a helmet necessarily makes your head bigger (which also makes it more likely that you will actually hit your head, where previously it may not, or may have been a 'glancing blow' - and of course because a helmet will hit before a head would it will be travelling faster (in a lot of circumstances, but obviously not all) and so show up damage that makes it seem like a bigger incident than had it been the head striking, but having that slightly longer time to decelerate before striking.</p> <p>The very fact there have been a few medical studies (though none anywhere near big enough) that haven't been able to conclude <em>either way</em> that a helmet is going to save your life/brain (something not even the manufacturers will admit, seriously, have a look at their websites, not a one will say this helmet will guarantee from injury) shows just how uncertain the area is.</p> <p>Then there's the whole '12mph' issue - not one I'm immediately convinced by, but the structure of bike helmets (which are a hugely different beast to motorbike helmets) means that at an impact speed of greater than 12mph (I think) they do very very little to protect the head. Get hit by a car and, well...</p> <p>The problem is so many arguments on both sides go down the 'anecdote as data' trail. I have a friend came off his bike, struck his head on a kerb, helmet came apart in two, and he's utterly convinced it saved his life (it might have done, it might not, he's not about to recreate the crash without a helmet for the sake of scientific curiosity); I've another friend was hit by a car and their head completely caved in the windscreen and they walked away unscathed, who wasn't wearing a helmet.</p> <p>I like that it's still personal choice, and I'm not going to chide anyone for exercising their own personal choice. With kids, I think the situation is different - they're more likely to fall off, have softer heads, and will be going much much slower adding to the efficacity of the helmet.</p> <p>Of course if we were looking purely at 'the numbers of people who could have their lives saved or be saved serious head injury', then helmets for car drivers would be, if you'll pardon the pun, a no-brainer. There are many many more drivers who suffer serious head injuries every year.</p> <p>I think I've rabbited long enough... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113922 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:06:29 +0000 Instography 113922@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Two tired</p> <p>I said: For me, the main con is that I don't want to wear one.</p> <p>You said: And this is fair enough :-) </p> <p>But that is precisely Spokes' point - it's not fair enough to people who organise events that require helmets to be worn. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113918 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:42:20 +0000 Kenny 113918@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>o_O - you might be right, but I'd rather play it safe. I'd rather not upset people, whether deliberately or accidentally, so thought it worth it to make that clear.</p> <p>I'm the same as you on that road, I take primary so I feel safe. The other guy went past on the inside of the traffic. And it scared me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113917 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:41:12 +0000 chdot 113917@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"this is a rough and tumble forum full of healthy diverse opinion, am i right?"</p> <p>More or less. </p> <p><em>One</em> subject seems (in the past at least) to have created 'two sides' - with quite a bit of unproductive 'shouting'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113916 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:39:34 +0000 Kenny 113916@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@rust - valid points. In response, IMHO, the speed we walk at is so much slower, there is less risk and therefore less need for a helmet. Sharp railing or fence post - ok, yep that would definitely do damage, but it's unlikely to happen. All IMHO.</p> <p>On the other hand, a heavy bash on the side of the shoulder might cause heavy contusions which will recover in around 3 weeks. The same on the side of the head might cause brain damage which won't recover. That's why I protect the head - because my brain is in it.</p> <p>But again, your points are also completely valid. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113915 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:36:59 +0000 minus six 113915@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No need to apologise, surely - this is a rough and tumble forum full of healthy diverse opinion, am i right? ;)</p> <p>I also commute daily on the A90 Queensferry Road dual carriageway. i do so on a road bike. I take primary position. No helmet required. I like to feel the wind in my hair... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113913 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:27:57 +0000 Kenny 113913@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I did not mean that people who don't wear helmets are stupid, so let me be clear on that, and also apologise if people got that impression. Upon reading it back last night, I can see that my words could easily be taken in that context. I didn't mean that, but rather than edit the post and cause confusion, I asked for the topic to be re-opened so I could clarify.</p> <p>The important bit of the post was intended to be later in that sentence - "cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them" - and a later post from another user showed a good example, with mountain biking being said example.</p> <p>I don't know what your commutes are like; I know some people who manage to commute almost entirely on cycle paths, so no helmet there is fair enough, because that environment is different to the environments I commute on, which includes the Queensferry Road dual carriageway. Just this morning, an individual on a MTB went past me on that road quite dangerously, without a helmet on. This strikes me as a dangerous thing to do, and IMHO it's a silly decision to make. I'll refrain from using the word "stupid" as it is possibly too strong and certainly contentious. But while it concerns me and makes me worry about what will happen if he were to fall and hit his head on the side of the road, that's up to him.</p> <p>So, again, apologies if people thought I was saying they were stupid. A poor choice of words, I'm not the first to do it, I won't be the last. And thanks to chdot for re-opening the thread to allow me to respond. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113824 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:44:50 +0000 Two Tired 113824@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There is one thing that is undeniable about wearing an undamaged, correctly fitting helmet. You get a blow to the head, it WILL absorb some of the force.</p> <p>Every other argument (for OR against) is open to debate. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113817 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:28:55 +0000 Baldcyclist 113817@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Rule #7 // Tan lines should be cultivated and kept razor sharp</em></p> <p>Actually, just thought of a con of wearing a helmet...</p> <p>Did 82 miles in beautiful weather on Saturday, I now have tan stripes on my bald head in the shape of the vents in my helmet. #True </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113812 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:23:07 +0000 ARobComp 113812@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My helmet is mainly used to hold my cycling cap and sunglasses on. This helps me maintain razor sharp tan lines around my panda eyes and therefore fulfilling rule 7.<br /> <strong>Rule #7 // Tan lines should be cultivated and kept razor sharp</strong> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113811 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:22:25 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 113811@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>In exactly the same way as if you say you do wear a helmet because you feel it personally benefits you, you are immediately branded a 'helmet fascist' and accused of ruining cycling by making it look too dangerous.</p> <p>Pretty ridiculous really but as you say it always gets reduced to black and white.</em>"</p> <p>Exactly, hence... , "<em>... what other people want to do is entirely up to them</em>"</p> <p>Mountain biking is definitely one of the areas, though, where I don't think there can really be an argument for not wearing one - primarily down to the higher chance of falling + speed of fall + sharp edges to be landed on.</p> <p>I think this may be a place for that old Bill and Ted saying, 'Be excellent to each other'. I honestly don't understand why the fringes of either side of the 'debate' get so het up that someone else's view isn't the same as them on helmets. We're all on bikes = good. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113810 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:20:39 +0000 Coxy 113810@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I like the trouser formula:</p> <p>Cycling specific trousers = helmet<br /> Normal trousers = no helmet</p> <p>Was that from off here? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113809 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:18:22 +0000 minus six 113809@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I too don't understand why people refuse to wear helmets</em></p> <p>I don't habitually wear a skirt - does that mean i'm refusing to wear one?</p> <p>Nah, of course not.</p> <p>What i'm <em>refusing</em> is to participate in the common delusion that cyclists are responsible for their own safety, via hi-viz and helmets.</p> <p>I'm responsible for my own safety by cycling within my means. No helmet is required for that.</p> <p>I will elect to wear hi-viz or reflectives in foggy or low light conditions. That's as far as it goes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113808 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:17:24 +0000 allebong 113808@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I hate myself for jumping into this yet again, but:</p> <p>"as soon as you say that you don't wear a helmet because you personally feel that it doesn't benefit you, you are immediately branded as 'anti' helmet"</p> <p>In exactly the same way as if you say you do wear a helmet because you feel it personally benefits you, you are immediately branded a 'helmet fascist' and accused of ruining cycling by making it look too dangerous.</p> <p>Pretty ridiculous really but as you say it always gets reduced to black and white.</p> <p>Side note: My first serious cycling experience was mountain biking, for which even the most anti-helmet person will concede a helmet is a good choice, try doing the black route at Glentress without one and see how you get on. So I spent much of my formative years on a bike wearing at least a helmet and often a full face motorbike style one along with full body armour for the really rough stuff. The result was that upon starting to cycle on the roads it felt really strange not to have something on my head. That doesn't mean I wear a helmet for scooting along the canal say. It does mean that, since I've had plenty of face-plants and other such injuries in my time off-road, that I will choose to wear one when cycling aggressively on open roads as I know how quickly you can go from 'I'm in control' to waking up concussed on the ground wondering what just happened.</p> <p>Edit: Few posts put up while typing this. In light of my last paragraph, I'd like to say that I'm not saying anyone who doesn't wear one on road is being reckless or stupid, it's just my experience with crashes so far makes me personally want to choose to wear a helmet if I deem the risks high enough. I will respect the views of anyone who thinks that's been too cautious or paranoid if they respect my view that I don't think anyone should be forced into or out of the decision. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119&page=2#post-113807 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:14:34 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 113807@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Always does, like I said, people see it as black and white (though not sure we've had outright name-calling of half the members being 'stupid' before). Probably best if chdot can lock this one down! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113805 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:11:49 +0000 Morningsider 113805@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>NooOOOOooooo...it's started again! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113803 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:05:20 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 113803@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>if people are <strong>stupid</strong> enough to cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them and they fail to wear them, then that's their problem, not mine</em>"</p> <p>Thanks for that. Adds to the debate nicely. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113802 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:05:15 +0000 rust 113802@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Not to fuel this, but...</p> <p><em> if people are stupid enough to cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them and they fail to wear them, then that's their problem, not mine</em></p> <p>Do I need to go in to the reductio ad absurdum argument for this? Wearing helmets while walking? While driving (ok, maybe statistically not that absurd, but culturally at least)?</p> <p><em>It will save you when you come off your bike taking a corner too aggressively though, I can guarantee you that</em></p> <p>It might do. But it depends on so many other things. Speed and what else I hit as I come off. A sharp railing or fence post through my chest won't be prevented by a helmet. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113801 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:03:32 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 113801@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>This is actually my point, key word being plausible.</em>"</p> <p>Which does, of course, work both ways. </p> <p>The fact of the matter is there is so much in the way of statistics and quasi-medical 'facts' bandied about both for and against the wearing of helmets that each individual is left to weigh up their own risks, and to consider what they actually believe (given we will all have a different idea of what is plausible).</p> <p>Of course as soon as you say that you don't wear a helmet because you personally feel that it doesn't benefit you, you are immediately branded as 'anti' helmet, which is, the majority of the time, not the case. I don't like the taste of raw tomatoes, that doesn't mean I'm anti-tomato, nor do I want every other person to stop eating tomatoes just because I don't like them.</p> <p>I say this primarily because so often the 'debate' goes into black-and-white mode, when there are so many greys in there they would make John Major explode in pleasure.</p> <p>My usual line is thus: I don't wear one to commute; I do to mountain bike or if the event mandates it and I really want to ride the event; what other people want to do is entirely up to them. It's kinda like religion, do what you want, just don't try to convert me [EDIT] or suggest that my 'informed choice' makes me 'stupid'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113800 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:58:53 +0000 Dave 113800@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Plausibility is in the eye of the beholder, but I can give you two possibilities for starters:</p> <p>- cyclists who wear a helmet subconsciously take greater risks with traffic, outweighing any advantage bestowed by the wearing of a helmet. The <a href="http://archive.is/gIKc">Munich taxi experiment</a> may be an eye-opener?</p> <p>- drivers take less care around helmeted cyclists, either because their assessment of the helmeted rider's competence is higher or because the perceived outcome of any collision is less severe. See <a href="http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/">here</a> - a limited study but one which showed a 30% increase in vehicles overtaking with &lt; 1m clearance when a helmet was worn.</p> <p>While it's true that nobody has pinpointed a cause(s), we do know that when helmet wearing rates rapidly increase, head injury rates don't decline, thanks to our antipodean friends and other former colonies who have put it to the test. There are lots of possible causes though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113799 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:54:39 +0000 Kenny 113799@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I too don't understand why people refuse to wear helmets. I don't think there should be a law making people do it though, much in the same way that I don't think there should be a seatbelt law - if people are stupid enough to cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them and they fail to wear them, then that's their problem, not mine. The whole "it won't save you from a truck" example is irrelevant, since the helmet is not intended to save you from that. It will save you when you come off your bike taking a corner too aggressively though, I can guarantee you that. </p> <p>I will always recommend to my brood of daughters that they wear a helmet when cycling anywhere but in our garden. I do the same, and I'm quite particular about how awesome my hair looks, so they can too. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113798 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:47:57 +0000 Morningsider 113798@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have read the NZ report. It's, how can I put this, of questionable value. It makes some fairly heroic assumptions and unusual comparisons between pedestrian and cyclist safety. </p> <p>I should say that I am completely opposed to compulsory helmet wearing, but agree with allebong's view that far too much useful cycle campaign time is spent on a side issue of no importance to anyone but cycle obsessives.</p> <p>Two Tired - I never skip breakfast, you can't be too careful! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113797 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:44:28 +0000 Two Tired 113797@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>For me, the main con is that I don't want to wear one. </em></p> <p>And this is fair enough :-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113796 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:44:24 +0000 Uberuce 113796@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Almost OT: SRD kindly loaned me three Tour de France books recently, and in one of them (Ned Boulter's <em>How I Won the Yellow Jumper</em>) there's mention of the fact the motorbike camera units can't film the riders from the front on descents because they can't go as fast. </p> <p>This is in the same chapter as an account of a rider who died after losing the road on a descent, which Ned attributed to his lack of helmet. I thought: hrmm must remember to post that next time there's an hasteriskasteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk thread. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113795 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:43:29 +0000 Two Tired 113795@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I bet you couldn't draw up some statistics that showed any plausible relationship between breakfast skipping and death by avalanche.</em></p> <p>This is actually my point, key word being plausible. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119#post-113793 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:38:01 +0000 Instography 113793@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I bet you couldn't draw up some statistics that showed any plausible relationship between breakfast skipping and death by avalanche.</p> <p>People say you can prove anything with statistics. Quite the opposite, you can prove almost nothing with statistics but you can often show a relationship and often suggest a plausible path of possible causation.</p> <p>For me, the main con is that I don't want to wear one. </p>