CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

THE Helmet Thread

(895 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from gembo

No tags yet.


  1. Focus
    Member

    @ rust

    This is one of those justifications I have a problem with because you can't say that your helmet didn't your Dave's head in those offs. Some would suggest that the neck strain could be a totally separate injury from the fall.

    I don't say the above to be argumentative, it's just that it's the usual response to anyone saying a helmet protected them, at least as much as saying a helmet save someone is a common response to people asking "why wear one?".

    It's no wonder the conversation always goes round in circles.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. adamthekiwi
    Member

    Dave - perhaps the only reason your neck was sore was that the extra 2-3cm of material on your head, combined with the slightly higher mass, caused your head to make contact with the ground when it otherwise wouldn't have. Perhaps, in fact, you're incredibly lucky to have got away with a minor neck injury, when a more major, possibly neurologically-compromising, one was on the cards as a result of you recklessly wearing a helmet?

    Don't get me wrong - like so many on here I'm anti-compulsion rather than anti-helmet: I'm a risk-taker, so I wear one almost all the time on a bike.

    "Helmet saved my life" stories, though, and their variants annoy me a little; they are likely to be nonsensical given that there is significant statistical evidence that populations without mandatory helmet regulations do not suffer massively higher head-injury levels than those with. That is not to say that helmets aren't useful[*] - just that if most of the "Helmet saved my life" stories were true, we'd see a massive death toll among those that choose not to wear them. That huge death toll appears to be missing...

    [* for, among other things:
    - mounting a camera;
    - with a peak, for keep some sun and rain from the eyes;
    - butting branches out of the way when on the mountain bike;
    - generating interesting hairstyles, post-ride;
    - protecting the head when bashing it against one's desk;
    - stopping doctors and nurses from tutting if one has to go to hospital.]

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. Focus
    Member

    Here's a question.

    Are helmet debates a pointless exercise? I don't think I've ever seen one person ever convinced to wear or stop wearing a helmet as the result of one.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. allebong
    Member

    Here's an answer.

    252 pages and still going strong.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. adamthekiwi
    Member

    No - I've not stopped wearing one, but I've definitely moved from being pro-compulsion to anti-compulsion.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. I wear one because It makes me *feel* protected even though I know otherwise AND I want my kids to wear one when they go out so set an example.

    IMHO it *should* be a matter of choice, but I also believe its taking a responsible position encouraging kids to wear them.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    Bikeability,

    If you know it doesn't protect you why do you feel your kids should wear one?

    Focus,

    I moved sides. I used to wear one. In 1996 I was hit by a car and Monklands A&E recorded the fact that I was wearing one. I was annoyed about this as I landed on my chin so the hat had no beneficial effect. Following this I looked into it more. There wasn't as much intarwebs back then but eventually I found out enough and the old Grio has been languishing in the garage since then.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Uberuce
    Member

    @Focus - I have moved from wearing one for every ride and castigating colleagues for not doing so -> leaving it off for short off-road jaunts -> leaving it off on my daylight commute, daylight non-fearsome leisure rides, and utility runs outwith rush hour, as well as arguing against compulsion.

    I mention daylight because I wear a helmet at this time of year to secure my ear-warming buff and to mount lights. It could in principle just be the strapping, but that looks worse than a lid.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. Focus
    Member

    Fair enough, a handful of people change their minds then. All the same, even though the debate goes on and on... and on, the basic anecdotes of people believing the helmet did a good job and the research which claims the benefits are unsubstantiated tend to be the same no matter how long the debate goes on, and on... and on.

    Probably a good thing there's a single dedicated thread on this forum - at least people can hop in and out of it at their choosing without the pros and cons being brought up too often elsewhere and sending things off course.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. allebong
    Member

    The lights thing is interesting. I personally feel much safer in the dark with a helmet light both on road and off. So, while during the day I don't bother with a helmet when pootling about, at night I wear it for the front and back mounted lights. I considered that I could get one of those elastic-strap hiking light things and have that on instead but the point at which you're putting on a hat then a separate light or two on top of that....a helmet is a better choice regardless of anything to do with crashes.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. DaveC
    Member

    Strange comment about having to wear a light to mount a light on. I use a Petzel headtorch which has a single elastic band to secure it to the head. When I have it on my helmet I have to use tiewraps/zipties to stop it flying off. For me I'd prefer no helmet to wear a head torch.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. Uberuce
    Member

    I don't wear a head torch, though; it's a handlebar light that also came with a helmet mount.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. allebong
    Member

    I'll clarify this: There's 3 lights I can mount to my helmet. One is a normal commuter type (Electron Micro 5) that clips into a handlebar mount cable tied to the helmet itself. So I don't have to mess about with straps or anything. Second light is a half-watt tailight that attaches to the back of the helmet with a single cable tie in a loop - again, I don't have to mess about with the cable tie to get it on and off, it basically hooks on in a second or two. Third light is a XML T6 torch for serious dark use - again, there's a mount cable tied to the helmet, so fitting the torch is easy enough.

    I could get a hiking headlight, then put the tailight onto the back of the strap, then fathom out some way of getting the big torch on when needed, with all this then placed on top of a hat....but as I said at that point a helmet really is more straightforward and convenient. Plus it's guaranteed to hold everything secure and rigid so my headlight is always pointing where I need it and not flopping around on a strap.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. Instography
    Member

    Put strong opinions in a room without conclusive evidence and you get a long-running fight.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. allebong
    Member

    @Insto: Wrong, all you need are strong opinions and a room, often the conclusive evidence doesn't change anything....

    (Can we please try to avoid a meta-argument about that...)

    In a related note, I have some relatives on holiday in Autralia at the moment, and they tell me the government there are on a massive anti-obesity drive. They are desperate to get people out walking, running, exercising etc and are encouraging this with posters and promotions all over the place.

    Do you think a repeal of a certain law around the wearing of a certain piece of headwear during a certain activity might be of benefit here?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. Instography
    Member

    It seems that all you need is strong opinions.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. fimm
    Member

    I've also gone from wearing a helmet all the time to not wearing one on the Brompton (except on odd occasions, like when it is icy) but I still wear one on the road bike. My boyfriend does not like me going helmetless and doesn't understand my reasons for doing so, but lets me get on with it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. Wee Folding Bike.

    Sorry poorly worded. should have said I know a helmet is unlikely to save my life.

    There are some things that kids can't rationalise and understand as well as adults. Some things they can and you let them get on with it, some things they can't but arent too important so you advise them. Helmet wearing is something i insist on with my kids, and every kid I train. No exceptions.

    Whilst they may be very good bike handlers - i've trained several kids who handled a better much better than i ever could, they are inexperienced in so many other ways, cycling safely for one, reading traffic and roads especially.

    Kids are also more likely be involved in 'silly' or low speed accidents where a helmet will be way more beneficial to them in avoiding injury.

    Also, I consider myself to be responsible ;-)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. wee folding bike
    Member

    I've never subscribed to the idea that kids need them more than adults. I don't wear one and my boys don't even own one. I consider not wearing one to be the good example. It's better in cycling terms and as a life skill in looking at the evidence rather than what people assume. I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstine or Superman and plastic cycling hats appear to depend on a level of unsupported faith which I don't have.

    I've been riding a bike on the road as my main transport since 1980 but I don't get involved in things like Bikeability because they insist on hats.

    This research might present you with a problem:

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1250.html

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Ah, good ol' cycle helmets.org, nothing like a wee bit of 'advocate' bias to muddy the waters.

    What reasons do we cite in this country for kids cycling numbers falling off a cliff? Perhaps the rise of the xbox has more to do with that reduction than helmet laws being introduced in Alberta and elsewhere.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. gembo
    Member

    That is my problem with the evidence in this debate. It is not without bias from both sides. I like cycle helmets double bluff bias as it is slightly less predictable.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. Kids are more likely to 'muck about' not pay attention or just plain not appreciate the dangers. They generally cycle at slower speeds. They are more likely to get hurt out on their bike than an adult. Helmets can and do prevent minor injuries. In that respect, they are a good idea.

    "I consider not wearing one to be the good example." Forgive me if i misinterpret that, but that suggests to me you think wearing a helmet will actually increase the chances of your kids being injured?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. wee folding bike
    Member

    Increased rate of injury is correlated with helmet compulsion so yes I don't see wearing a helmet as a zero risk option it's worse than not wearing one.

    Throwing mud at cycle helmets.org is not a compelling argument. Are you claiming that computer game use increase that much between 2000 and 2006?

    You would still have to address the increase in serious injuries for kids. I notice you didn't.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Are you claiming that computer game use increase that much between 2000 and 2006?

    Computer game use, maybe. Internet use certainly. We only have to look at our own country with no helmet compulsion to see obesity rates in kids rocketing. Kids are getting off of their bikes worldwide because of TV and computers, not because they might have to wear a helmet in some countries.

    In this respect helmet use is most certainly a red herring!

    The problem I have with cyclehelmets.org in that it is not objective, it"s a bit like the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Catchy relevant title to lure you in, then bombard you with an anti message, no balance whatsoever despite claiming to offer the reader information to make an informed choice. To be properly informed you need both sides of an argument.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. @ Wee Folding Bike "Increased rate of injury is correlated with helmet compulsion"

    Do you have any evidence to prove that means the same as "Increased rate of injury is correlated with helmet wearing"?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. Uberuce
    Member

    I was listening to The Infinite Monkey Cage the other day and the Very Senior And Respected Professor of Risk mentioned he had cycled to the studio on a Boris without a helmet. Aside from the time Billy Bragg suggested science was just another religion, I've not heard such a sharp intake of audience breath.

    His snippet is worth listening to; if I remember correctly, it gists as: pootlers don't need one, roadies need body armour as well. I have previously been burned by poor radio memory here on CCE, so please go and check.

    @Bikeability - it's not that you've got a bad argument for putting a lid on a child when they get onto a bike - it's that you've got a good argument for keeping it on them until they go to bed, then putting it back on next morning.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. @Uberuce Not being obtuse deliberately but your last point has gone right over my head.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. wee folding bike
    Member

    No because it wouldn't really be ethical to do those experiments would it?

    One of the problems is that cycle injuries are rare. There are suggested mechanisms and the Canadian paper is quite interesting because it might tell us something about one of the possibilities.

    Can you tell me why it correlates? It's not just in Canada. It happens elsewhere too. Why does helmet compulsion correlate with an increase in serious injury?

    You were the one to mention the decrease in miles cycled by kids and now you claim it's a red herring. If it wasn't important why mention it?

    I said compulsion correlates with increased injury. Do you accept that it does or do you want to dispute that? Have you an explanation for the correlation?

    I have read pro helmet papers. Lots of them. I've been reading them for nearly 18 years. Does that qualify as balance?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. wingpig
    Member

    @bikeability I believe the point being made by the professional child-wrangler would be something along the lines of a child being in close proximity to a bicycle possibly not being statistically significantly more likely to dunt itself about the head at <=12mph any more than a child in close proximity to any sort of surface or object a child might decide to experimentally impact its head with, including other children's heads.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. Baldcyclist
    Member

    @wfb I think you are arguing with more than one person ;) I'll address the bit we are disagreeing over....

    You were the one to mention the decrease in miles cycled by kids and now you claim it's a red herring. If it wasn't important why mention it?

    Helmets are a red herring, kids are cycling less because of TV and computer games/internet worldwide. They are not cycling less because they have to wear helmets in some countries.

    The Canadian study tried to suggest helmets were to blame for this in Alberta, perhaps the Canadian scientists could come to the UK and explain why we are experiencing the same drop in numbers here, or In any other country in the world which doesn't have helmet compulsion?

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin