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!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Feedback on Spokes' stance on helmet compulsion in events
(49 posts)- Started 12 years ago by chdot
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I hate myself for jumping into this yet again, but:
"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"
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.
Pretty ridiculous really but as you say it always gets reduced to black and white.
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.
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.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I too don't understand why people refuse to wear helmets
I don't habitually wear a skirt - does that mean i'm refusing to wear one?
Nah, of course not.
What i'm refusing is to participate in the common delusion that cyclists are responsible for their own safety, via hi-viz and helmets.
I'm responsible for my own safety by cycling within my means. No helmet is required for that.
I will elect to wear hi-viz or reflectives in foggy or low light conditions. That's as far as it goes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I like the trouser formula:
Cycling specific trousers = helmet
Normal trousers = no helmetWas that from off here?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"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.
Pretty ridiculous really but as you say it always gets reduced to black and white."
Exactly, hence... , "... what other people want to do is entirely up to them"
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.
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.
Posted 11 years ago # -
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.
Rule #7 // Tan lines should be cultivated and kept razor sharpPosted 11 years ago # -
Rule #7 // Tan lines should be cultivated and kept razor sharp
Actually, just thought of a con of wearing a helmet...
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
Posted 11 years ago # -
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.
Every other argument (for OR against) is open to debate.
Posted 11 years ago # -
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 11 years ago # -
No need to apologise, surely - this is a rough and tumble forum full of healthy diverse opinion, am i right? ;)
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...
Posted 11 years ago # -
@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.
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.
But again, your points are also completely valid.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"this is a rough and tumble forum full of healthy diverse opinion, am i right?"
More or less.
One subject seems (in the past at least) to have created 'two sides' - with quite a bit of unproductive 'shouting'.
Posted 11 years ago # -
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.
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.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Two tired
I said: For me, the main con is that I don't want to wear one.
You said: And this is fair enough :-)
But that is precisely Spokes' point - it's not fair enough to people who organise events that require helmets to be worn.
Posted 11 years ago # -
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).
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 are arguments that helmets can cause rotational injuries (with some 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.
The very fact there have been a few medical studies (though none anywhere near big enough) that haven't been able to conclude either way 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I think I've rabbited long enough...
Posted 11 years ago # -
the speed we walk at is so much slower, there is less risk and therefore less need for a helmet
The speed is slower so a helmet is more likely to work.
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.
Posted 11 years ago # -
CCE thread drift is expected
But
Just to remind -
Thread started being about Spokes not advertising helmet only events.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You get a blow to the head, it WILL absorb some of the force. Every other argument is open to debate.
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.
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.
But our parents learned to ride a bicycle without helmets. Most of us* 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.
I still support Spokes' decision. An event organiser cannot and should not micromanage the behaviour of every participant.
* other ages are available.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've deleted last two posts as they are off the topic.
At the risk of appearing 'too dictatorial' this is not the thread for debating 'new helmet evidence'.
If anyone really wants another thread on 'the helmet debate' then start one.
I suspect it will rapidly descent into 'proves my point' v 'who paid for research/peer reviewed it?'
Personal choice and all that.
Posted 11 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
