Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The person who set this up seems to have a real issue with them. It seems odd.
I know that someone mentioned to me that they don't wear one because they think cars are more likely to run you down if you do. I didn't really get the reasoning though.
or something close to that. I was never sure if he was joking or not.
or something like that. Still unsure if it was a joke, too.
I don't remember saying that, certainly sounds like something I might have said though
Cyclists who ride with headphones in. Just the worst.
can still hear what's going on around me but tbh if I saw me I'd probably MASSIVELY JUDGE myself
he said it made him a better cyclist
I've encountered 3 in the last year, all of them wobbling around, clueless about what else is going on.
...being legally obliged to wear a cycle helmet. If so, a view that I (and the majority of cycle groups) share.
CTC's info page is quite helpful for this issue:
so that no-one sits next to them on the bus
I think you're absolutely fucking mental if you don't wear a helmet when cycling, mind, but I don't see a) how it can practically be applied in law and b) much evidence of a need for it to be law in the first place.
like ok, we get that you love the feel of the wind in your hair, you don't need to write eight pages of statistic-free logical gymnastics to justify it babes
than will be killed by not wearing a helmet seems somewhat dubious. It's not like cycling is the only form of exercise!
(which was good) but anyway there were some hipsters there and they were all like "oh yeah I NEVER wear a cycle helmet because... like, cars ALWAYS drive faster and nearer when you're wearing one and it's just not worth it" and all her pals nodded in agreement.
This is *deffo* an each to their own thing, but, what bollocks. Has any study ever discovered this?
I certainly feel about 200% safer wearing a helmet in London and would never not wear one. Cars drive badly regardless.
each to their own as in "don't wear a helmet if you don't want to" but you'd be a completely ninny not to.
Did you think what she said was right though?
if paramedics get to choose whether or not they want to scrape your brain off the road after an accident.
this is true
Sounds pretty analogous to me, that.
words have meanings
hang on so if people get to choose whether to wear a helmet
paramedics get to choose whether or not to pick up the leftover brains
but then there's just brains left everywhere
is it even the paramedics jobs to pick up the brains anyway
i think we're getting away from the core issues guys
jonny rat you are a cyclist and learned stats man what are you views
and say that there was a finding, or maybe just something someone said, a few years back that stuck with me on the topic that made me think seriously about it: it was that looking at all the bike fatalities in London there weren't many - perhaps not even one - where from the data available it seems that wearing a helmet would have made a difference. Fatalities seem to be almost exclusively the result of roads being shared between HGVs and cyclists. Note: I have no citation for this. Now, for me, that shouldn't necessarily affect individual choice and behaviour about wearing a helmet, but it suggests to me that pushing for helmet laws is something of a distraction if getting the numbers of cyclists up is the goal.
We found no randomized controlled trials, but five well conducted case-control studies met our inclusion criteria. Helmets provide a 63
to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection
for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are
Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries for bicyclists of all ages involved in all types of crashes, including those involving
motor vehicles. Our response to comments from critics are presented in the Feedback section.
there are huge problems with this study. It's the go-to for quotes on effectiveness and it's not good.
I've had this debate before but ages ago so I went elsewhere to remind myself of the issues:
- Those percentages should not be percentages. They're based on odds ratios. You should never report odds ratios like that.
- The control vs case groups - this is a huge problem. They aggregated the data from the studies (I think) and put them into people who had fallen off their bikes at some point in the past and people who were in hospital with injusries sustained in falling off their bikes. No accounting for demographic diffs either. This quote is good:
"A comparison of the two groups based mainly on helmet use of children under 15 years (21.1% of ‘control’ vs 2.1% of ‘case’ children) leads to the frequently quoted claim that the reduction in head injury due to helmets is 85%."
some of the methods and how odds-ratios and relative-risks can/should be interpreted, but on the whole I believe the meta-analysis speaks for itself in showing the benefit provided by wearing a helmet when involved in an accident. Not only that, but it's logical that wrapping your head in a shock-absorbing and protective helmet is going to have a benefit.
The argument should be separated about the behavioural aspect of drivers and cyclists, from the fact that a helmet may help and won't harm if you do come off your bike. That behavioural part should be dealt with separately.
fundamental problems with comparison groups isn't quibbling, and neither is reporting the results in a way that doesn't mean what the authors are saying they do. The problem with this study is that it suggests a clear and present effect between two comparable groups, and then you read the methods, and it doesn't. At all. Don't give a study credibility because the abstract says the thing that you want it to.
And no, the two things shouldn't be separated out here, because they will not be separated out when it comes to relevant policy-making and public spending. We can have this utterly inconsequential thread and talk about it from a personal safety perspective, but the important question is whether money is going to be spent on making roads safe for cyclists, and for that reason we should properly scrutinise the available evidence.
the authors caveat all the limitations of case-control in the space available. It's a Cochrane review, it's a way of bringing together slightly different but similar studies to make a more powerful statement - that's not ignoring the biases or uncertainties associated with each study. The responses to reviewers comments at the bottom are interesting (only skimmed them).
The case-control design implicitly accounts for demographic differences (if conducted properly). You find a control who are as identical to the cases as possible, except for the intervention (helmet). They are open to bias, but that doesn't automatically mean they aren't ever reliable designs from which to draw an inference.
I haven't got the time or inclination to start ploughing through the actual studies, and that's the point of a Cochrane Review in the first place, to provide a reliable assessment of a body of evidence so you don't need to.
I get what you're saying in your second para and in many ways agree. However we can't have a reliable large-scale study to assess the total effect of a public policy such as compulsory helmets - it'd be impossible to do. Therefore we have to piece a policy together through lots of other pieces of evidence, including opinion.
1. studies such as the above which show that (shock horror) if you come off your bike it's better if you're wearing a helmet
2. the moral hazard of cyclists being more risky when wearing a helmet
3. the issue of drivers being dangerous, in particular if a cyclist is wearing a helmet.
So with (1), I don't think there are any cyclists who'd argue that a helmet isn't a good idea to protect your head if you fall off your bike. On the whole there is some level of benefit, you can debate the size of the benefit.
With (2), my personal belief is that this isn't a huge issue. Some cyclists are dangerous and risky, and many aren't. I think this comes down to a lot more than if they're wearing a helmet or not, and it's actually something that the cycling community can be doing a lot more to battle. Rather than criticise attempts to get cyclists to wear helmets and protect themselves, challenge cyclists who are being risky.
With (3), we are already seeing this a lot, and we should see even more. As a cyclist and driver it does my head in (lol) when I see drivers being far too close to cyclists. We should be punishing this severely, irrespective of helmet wearing. How we change behaviour and people's perception of the risk they impose on others and how they value that is a massive challenge.
On the whole I don't buy the idea that you can say that the moral hazard of cyclists and behaviour of drivers is going to outweigh the benefit of wearing a helmet. If it does, we need to be tackling those issues separately.
Like a modern day head on a spike.
Think you're vastly overestimating just how much difference a piece of plastic-covered polystyrene is gonna make here chief.
mine seemed pretty good when I went over my handlebars tbh
but the bottom line is that it's never going to make you LESS safe.
(Cue someone putting up a piece about a truck catching the edge of someone's helmet and ripping their head off as it overtakes.)
does increase your chances of being involved in an accident - either through increased risk-taking due to the false comfort that the helmet provides, or due to the studies mentioned that suggest that car drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets etc?
None of those studies you mention have any kind of strong arguments, from what I can see. The false comfort thing is likewise odd because it's massively individual. How would you feel if I used the same argument for NOT crossing roads at crossings, due to the 'false comfort' of traffic lights making me more vulnerable to dangers? Or indeed NOT using pavements due to the false comfort that a vehicle won't suddenly mount the curb by accident and wipe me out?
is referred to in academic stuff as risk compensation. It's debateable as to when and where it occurs and to what extent: not sure if anyone's looked at it for cycling in great depth. There's this from more than 10 years ago..
but it isn't peer reviewed and it isn't very good at all.
you'd need solid evidence that a) either of those were actually a thing, and b) solid evidence that those increased risks were enough that the overall risk was still greater despite the protection a helmet provides.
so far it doesn't look like this is the case I guess?
like you could hypothesise that you were, say, 5% more likely to be in an accident if you didn't wear a helmet, but that's a small increase that has to be balanced against the fact you're hitting the deck with your bare skull.
No-one really seems to have the numbers.
...on the moral hazard attributed to wearing a bike helmet.
Do cyclists really don a helmet and think they're invincible?
The point about drivers isn't relevant. They should be punished for dangerous driving irrespective of whether or not a cyclist is wearing a helmet.
Indisputable fact number 1 - if you fall off your bike, wearing a helmet may help, and it won't harm.
The reason(s) for falling off the bike in the first place should be dealt with separately.
I remember reading (a long time ago) about the methods used whilst testing them involve dropping a crash-dummy hanging vertically upside-down and measuring the damage done.
I can confirm that I 100% never notice whether or not bicyclists have helmets on. And unless they're dead in front of you you rarely see the tops of their heads anyway?
you don't notice a cyclist until they're lying dead under your vehicle?
"A recent report commissioned by the Department for Transport rejected all behavioural research, including that of Dr Walker, saying that none of the studies was robust enough to prove that helmets affect behaviour."
Yeah, not perfect, but a government report doesn't make it all lies.
I'm not fighting any corner here.
obvi it'd be nicer to see better meta-analysis but given that it's a single study by a guy who seems to have a definite dog in the fight I'll remain sceptical for now...
I was just ineloquently trying to avoid the whole "this said yes so it is 100% yes", "but this said no so it is 100% no" situation. Not sure why I'm in this thread byeeeeeeeeeeeee
to me the whole behavioural aspect (are drivers more likely to avoid helmetless cyclists etc) is utterly, utterly irrelevant. The point at which you get smashed by a bus and your body hurtles through the air, thinking to yourself "well, statistically this wasn't supposed to happen" won't save your head as hits the tarmac. Only a helmet will do that.
is that the evidence on the efficacy of helmets is in similar health to that of behaviour of motorists around cyclists. This is a shame, because this should be easier to gather - nobody seems to have make a good stab at actually doing it though (even the gov's review cited there states that it's rubbish - the estimates of 15%-50% effectiveness, and what does that even mean, are pretty much pulled from a hat).
I understand the hostility to any proposed legislation, but not so much the slightly-mad sounding hatred that people have of them. It's slightly delicate for pro-cycling orgs, especially for those campaigning for better space provision for cyclists: it's easy enough for say, well, they should be campaigning for both helmet use and space, but that ends up as a mixed message - cyclists should protect themselves vs cyclists deserve protections.
I think that it should be everyone's choice, I just don't see why on earth you would campaign against them. I understand that the reason behind starting this group might be because they don't want it to be legally mandatory but they are really laying into the concept of actually wearing one.
who are willing to make the sacrifice of not wearing one, in order to help (in probably the smallest of ways) reduce the view in this country that cycling is a niche activity that requires specialist safety equipment, when in reality it could/should be a completely normal activity undertaken my anyone of any age/ability.
Obviously this is talking about cycling as a mode of transport or leisure pursuit, rather than instances where the risk of injury is increased i.e. racing, dh mtb-ing etc.
you do need some specialist safety equipment (like lights) to ride safely on the road.
Do agree that something should be done about cycling's public image - have plenty of #croatianmates who have bikes but would never use them to commute because they think bike commuting = death. But that's more to do with massive HGVs squashing people, not about whether people can be arsed buying helmets.
And that will only happen when you make cycling something that isn't niche - ie when you have a critical mass of cyclists from a wide range of groups using it as a regular mode of transport.
Segregated lanes are a huge part of that, as is keeping helmets as voluntary- make them mandatory and you see a huge drop off in cycling numbers to the point where that critical mass level doesn't get reached.
Because you have to carry it around? Contrary to some people in the thread I don't think that people who don't wear helmets are being 'fucking idiots', I just don't see why they feel the need to actively campaign against it.
are really effective at reducing uptake in cycling. Which to cyclists (and pretty much EVERYONE else) is a bad thing. Safety in numbers and all that - more people cycling on a regular basis = more awareness, better representation, and ideally more money spent on decent infrastructure to provide actual safety from motorists in the form of segregation
That's a proper spelling mistake.
But I've been told that there were similar campaigns when seatbelts became law. Some people just really don't like being told what to do.
not even an argument to be had
everyone more than 1ft tall
someone told me (if it's not true I don't want to know) that a few years previously a law was passed that you had to wear a helmet on your moped/scooter/motorbike. People got around it by just putting any old shit on the heads like mixing bowls and colanders.
if you get hit by a car it WILL reduce the chances of head injury.
They don't even look that uncool anymore. in fact, loads do look pretty cool, and I'm not a cyclist. but I do ride a motorbike (scooter, will be a motorbike at some, point tho yeh). it is legal requirement for motorbikes - why not cycles? it is probably as easily enforcable as that.
Ride on the road, wear a helmet. pretty simple. pretty sensible.
feel really sorry for the drivers of cars involved in cycle accidents that do serious damage to someones head because the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.
I accidentally stumbled into this conversation in real life, not realising that there was such a righteous position on not wearing cycle helmets. I couldn't really believe it tbh, thought it was a massive wind up until things got really heated. Too cool to live, yeah? I say again, fucking idiots.
That's my bit.
Would you feel really sorry for the drivers of cars involved in pedestrian accidents that do serious damage to someones head because the pedestrian wasn't wearing a helmet? Where do you draw the line? Should motorists wear helmets? I'd hazard a guess that pedestrians and motorists are involved in significantly higher proportion of accidents involving head injuries but nobody every calls for them to wear helmets.
I'm not arguing against helmet use in cyclists, but it seems a strange argument when applied elsewhere.
but pedestrians and cars do not share the same space. next to each other, yes, but they are not mixed up the same as cars and bikes. it's different enough that you can draw the line.
makes me sound like an awful person. sorry.
Mainly due to the fucking ridiculously massive numbers of accidents involving cars and pedestrians.
But, even ignoring that - what about car drivers/users? If there was evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet whilst driving reduced your risk of head or facial injury would there be an outcry of people campaigning for the promotion of driver helmets, or for the law to be changed, or cyclists getting up-in-arms about reckless car drivers foolishly not wearing their helmet when involved in an accident?
I'm still unsure of where I stand on the whole matter, if it matters. I cycle every day and only regularly wear a helmet whilst commuting in rush hour due to what I perceive to be an increased risk in being involved in an accident. (Also because I promised by mum I would wear one when I first got a bike :))
...for the 1,000th time, but this is a decent TED talk on the subject:
and just flicks through it all day until he finds the appropriate shitey comment to post?
On a serious note, he dismisses 'scientific facts' as if they are some strange magic.
it's like the argument that cars shouldn't have crumple zones and airbags and the like, because it makes people drive more recklessly if they feel safer.
I wear a helmet (when cycling) and have never needed it but I don't know why people get worked up either way. In some respects it's an overly cautious bit of protection because you most likely to get crushed by a lorry anyway, so the only real argument against them is that they make you look like a bit of a dick - but the thing is, if you're riding a bike, you probably are a bit of a dick anyway.
and, generally, give you more room than if they perceive to be an experienced cyclist. That's the notion, anyway. I think studies have shown it applies more to female cyclists than male.
Obviously that only really applies to passing distances, so getting clipped from someone going past, which isn't going likely to cause a major injury. Cyclists are much more vulnerable when drivers just don't see them and plough into them. In those cases, wearing horse-riding style body protector would make the cyclists much safer, but there are no calls for that.
As a driver AND a cyclist, genuinely don't think most drivers notice whether cyclists are wearing helmets, and all the pro-cycling campaigning I've seen reported in the mainstream media is about cycle lanes and HGVs and the like, not seen anything about mandatory helmet laws being proposed. I'm not saying mandatory helmets (lol) aren't a thing, it just seems like a niche thing that internet types get into a whirlwind about.
It's usually driven by the car lobby these days.
Those studies above are more about casual clothing vs hi-vis and helmets, which is a difference that driver should be able to spot. I'd like to think drivers give enough attention to cyclists to notice whether they're wearing a helmet or not, I certainly do, but it depends how segregated they are.
Mandatory helmets are a thing in Australia. The same number of cyclists die from head injuries and much fewer people cycle, meaning more people die from long-term health problems.
where a guy rode for a month without a helmet, then a month with, and then a month with a long blonde wig, whilst measuring and recording the distances that cars passed him at?
The guy linked to above: http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
I didn't realise that was the "methodology", but I suppose it keeps everything apart from appearance consistent.
getting clipped can easily put you under the wheels of passing traffic & is potentially fatal
it's not something you tend to brush off lightly
its the law to wear one, you get fined if you are caught not. Lets do that and stick it to fashion!
puts an extra £15+ onto the cost of buying a bike. I doubt that's an issue for anyone on here but it's not really compatible with the 'cycling for all' message currently being pushed.
if you're genuinely convinced that helmetless cycling is a big safety risk then that £15 is an unavoidable part of the cost of riding.
(not saying it necessarily is, mind)
it's just something to factor in. Raising that cost (and hassle) threshold - even just by a small amount - would probably have a noticeable impact on uptake of cycling. Again, if that's actually the goal in the UK.
mandatory helmets leads to a reduction in cycling. It's more to do with it helping to reinforce cycling as something that's less of a casual activity and also, unfortunately, the vanity of The cyclists needed to bring participation over the critical mass.
but if you're looking to put the breaks on (or accelerate) one of those shifts an economic incentive (or disincentive) is a great place to start. In aus the whole (ugh) narrative seemed to be anti-cyclist for a while, and cost/hassle could have been a part of that.
conflating the situations in australia and here. Arresting culture shifts with legislation is a different issue to actually reducing numbers of cyclists!
If you dont know how to fall properly and come off not wearing a helmet your skull takes the impact and breaks in the worst case scenario, you get a scabby head in the best, but your brain is relatively ok.
If you're wearing a helmet and come off it takes the impact but your brain basically shoogles around your skull and you get concussion.
If you get hit by a car you're fucked no matter what you're wearing. Helmets aren't made to withstand getting hit by a car.
I've known people who've come off and hit their heads helmeted and non helmeted, its bad in both cases.
I choose to wear one because its more pro.
My head really hurt afterwards and now I wear a helmet.
and had to spend the night in hospital. Which was fine, but my Spiderman outfit was soaked in blood and had to be thrown away :(
It offered NO protection.
until last year when a collision with a moped sent me flying and the top of my helmet scraped the road before I landed on my back. That would have caned if that was my head scraping the tarmac instead, and also I would've felt really stupid having to explain why I wasn't wearing a helmet. There's no point not wearing one imho (except when you're just popping down the road to the shops/pub).
Not 30 minutes ago a guy in a porsche (with personalised L plates) overtook me by going into the other lane round a blind corner (squinty bridge, glasgow fans). Gave him the classic "smug condescending smirk" as I passed him in the queue at the lights 50 metres from said corner.
this may be a result of the routes I normally take, though.
when crossing the road when they shouldn't and I'm coming towards them. Getting hit by a bike would still be quite sore.
I do really enjoy watching the White Man's Half-Jog tho =D
It's other cyclists and pedestrians that cause me grief on a near-daily basis.
That said, I nearly got into a fight with a motorcyclist the other week after he tried to intimidate a cyclist by revving up loudly behind him and then literally nudging into him as he went past. I was fucking indignant and had a pop at him and he kind of got in my face before speeding off at 100mph. I was so mad that he could go unpunished for such a dangerous act of aggression but felt comfort in the fact he'll probably be dead within a year.
Saw a good incident on Monday when a good cyclist stopped for a pedestrian on a zebra crossing and caused a pile-up of dickhead cyclists. LOL
loads of dick-cycles getting pissed off they can't breeze through a red light as I've stopped in front of them.
we had a car pull out in front of us when we were steaming along at 20 mph, had to brake sharpish
i was tkaing the wind & mrs h had to swerve to avoid me
idiot 4x4 driver totally oblivious
that'd be a good start I think
but if we had a mayor who cares seriously about cycling and the advantages that it brings, especially when it becomes a genuine modal shift away from driving, they would be advocating a variable congestion charge for all vehicles within the M25, with step-change thresholds at the North-circular and at the current CCZ boundary, as well as variable charges throughout the day, to manage peak traffic flow.
but I'd be pretty stoked if they did do it.
(i would like to think wearing a helmet is better than not wearing one but i've googled 'wearing helmet science' so i'll get back to yous)
i agree they shouldn't be compulsory but i will continue wearing one..i think. what do people think of compulsory condom wearing in porn? i think it's interesting cause you'd pretty much have to also use them for oral sex and also dental dams for cunnilingus.
most people havent even seen a dental dam.
where porn stars were all like "actually we're safer than regular people who DO use condoms because we all test regularly" and then there were a ton of HIV outbreaks?
and their '1st amendment rights' lol
i don't think that's necessarily an argument for making condoms compulsory though. personally, i actually prefer when they use them but that's just me.
and if not eroticised then at least not seen as this huge sexytimes downer so people using them in porn should definitely be a thing. I know he can be a divisive figure but I really admire Dan Savage's stance on this.
The above-board production companies/stars/distributors etc run pretty tight ships and their performers are pretty much safe because of the huge amount of testing that goes on. The problem is that there are still so many companies that aren't above board that the risk is always there, especially when performers and crew move between the two worlds.
The argument for using condoms in porn has a three-pronged approach: 1. It would reduce the risk of transfer on set. 2. It would normalize the use of condoms in porn, hopefully filtering down to the less scrupulous and 3. It would normalize the use of condoms outside of the porn world.
I'm yet to be convinced by the arguments for these (there's a danger that it would lead to a growth in the non-regulated side of the industry), but as an aim, it's laudable.
With an electric toothbrush, you have a few moments spare every day.
insofar as it's a situation where there's this easy and not-super-costly thing you can do to massively reduce your risk, and then there's a bunch of people pulling out some mega mental gymnastics and magical thinking to justify not doing it, and then BOOM suddenly everyone has AIDS.
(not sure not wearing a bike helmet gives you aids, don't quote me on that)
we've had a few in here who didn't wear helmets, then got bashed up and now do. Has anyone gone the other way? i.e.
- lost a bunch of head skin in a crash and kept on being a no-helmet badman
- crashed while wearing a helmet and subsequently gone barehead because you are in fact safer without a helmet?
crashed into a helmet and are now a bicycle
got knocked off her bike by a speeding driver. She was not wearing a helmet. She was killed.
I'll never know if a helmet would have saved her life. All I know is that she wasn't wearing one, and she died. I don't really care about exact statistics, there is of course a chance that a helmet might have saved her, and she really should have been wearing one.
I don't like the "personal choice" argument. Her death affected a LOT more people than just her, and putting something fairly innocuous into legislation that could have caused her survival gets my vote. If you cycle without wearing a helmet, it's not just your life that you're risking.
Of course if the driver had been going at the speed limit then she almost certainly would have survived, but that's a totally separate issue ...
I hope this doesn't offend, but I fundamentally disagree with your third paragraph. It'd be a slippery slope applying that philosophy to any/every other walk of life.
I guess my main point is the "fairly innocuous" part, and that depends on personal perspective.
Applying this idea to every walk of life isn't really the point though, because there are already rules about what you can do on the road - I mean it's illegal to drive without a seatbelt on, and that's something that only really puts you at risk.
People (well, the AA and RAC) were going apeshit about their right to drive without wearing seat belts, libertarian bullshit. I'm sure when that was going through some complete numbskull suggested it was crazy nanny statism and that it would seep into other walks of life.
It's facile to think that. A law requiring you wear a helmet isn't a big deal.
It's a big deal if the law change reduces cyclist's safety.
A mandatory helmet law is a completely seperate issue to this, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.
which references putting helmet wearing into legislation, i.e. making it law.
DOTS was claiming this would lead to requirements in other areas. I was disagreeing with that and 'big deal' was naturally in reference to the knock on effect.
Still, if you think wearing a helmets will make cyclists less safe there's not much hope for you, really. (I haven't really read your posts due to your heel turn of calling out fidel for being evil or something.)
An individual choosing to wear a helmet may make them less likely to suffer serious injury in an accident (probable). And individual choosing to wear a helmet may make them more likely to be involved in an accident (possible - the evidence is inconclusive).
Legislation forcing cyclists to wear helmets is a completely different issue to the one under discussion, and one which you've conflated with the above. All the evidence points to this making cycling less safe as it dramatically reduces the number of people cycling to the point that their numbers fall below what's termed the 'critical mass' necessary for it to become safer as a means of transport.
You haven't actually read my post, though, have you, because I am literally discussing the issue of this sub thread, i.e. legislation to wear helmets that DOTS, despite passive-aggressive this-ing of your incompetent misreading, did actually say would have a knock on effect into other areas of society.
I've also read your laughable argument that it will reduce the numbers of cyclists and dissolve a critical mass that you think you need to change the country's view of cycling. Wildly speculatory, I would say.
To even consider putting any faith in the idea that wearing a helmet might make it MORE likely you'd be in an accident is clearly entering some weird territory of debate.
No surprise to you in need of some apologising, frankly.
"In Victoria, after the introduction of compulsory helmets, there was a 30% reduction in cycling and it was associated with a higher risk of death or serious injury per cyclist, outweighing any benefits of increased helmet wearing."
And again, most of this thread is people discussing the different studies that are inconclusive about whether wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in an accident. Follow the links, it's all in there.
Sorry to hear about your sister x
The way I see it is that you can't predict what a vehicle is going to do. You don't know if they see you're not wearing a helmet and are more careful or just don't care either way. Even if i get a little knock from someone who was being careful and my head hits the ground, with a helmet I would have a much better chance of no brain damage/death.
As for everyone saying that if that theory was in place for pedestrians, everyone would wear one. No, because 1) I don't walk in front of moving cars 2) I'm not balancing on two thin wheels, my feet are firmly on the ground 3) I'm not going 20 mph.
is when my feet got stuck in my pedals, I keeled over and smacked my head on the kerb.
If wearing a helmet is effective in preventing injuries or death whilst cycling, then surely they'd be effective in doing the same to pedestrians - regardless of where they are in the road/on the pavement, speed they're travelling(?) etc.
You said it below yourself: "Its not about how far or how fast you're going really, its that you can't accouter for what other road users are doing." <- how does this not apply just as much to pedestrians as it does to cyclists?
Smacking into another pedestrian isn't going to provide the same force of impact.
Really, drawing parallels with pedestrians is the worst sort of reductive bullshit, isn't it? If we didn't have crossings and had to dash across roads where cars didn't give a shit about us then you'd have a point.
(Also, I realise that you live in a city where motorists seem to put their foot down if they see pedestrians in the road except at a crossing in their favour. In 'that London' pedestrians do get a slightly easier ride.)
where their head gets belted on the road.
For a start, if you just fall over on the street, your hands are free to put down. Your legs are free to bend your knees etc.
The probability of being knocked over by a car as a pedestrian is fewer than that of being knocked over by a car whilst cycling. Mainly because you don't cycle on the pavement, you cycle infront of/beside cars. You don't walk in the road.
- How many times have you almost been knocked or fallen off your bike?
At least once or twice a week
- How many times have you almost been run over by a car or fallen over in the street? (not drunk)
probably shouldn't be allowed out the house at all.
I cycle every day. Theres always a near miss here and there or a slip on a grate
Cycling is multi-faceted discipline. Pottering to the shops is very different to lycraing up and doing 100k in a day. I would definately wear a helmet for the latter, but not the former. Speed is the key thing for me in terms of safely; casually going to the shops and my speed is unlikely to go over 10-15mph for most of the journey - falling off in these situations will usually mean that the most dangerous aspect of the fall is the distance from my head to the ground - the same thing that can kill you if you hit your head when falling when simply walking. If you are traveling faster than this you have this aspect and the added aspect of your momemntum when you fall, which will present oppurtunities for far more impacts as you roll down the street like a rag doll.
Can't have a weird law where certain journeys require a helmet so things will stay the rider's chioce, for a good reason in my opinion.
It's definately good that motorcycling with a helmet is mandatory: there's no real way that you can motorcycle so slowly as to not require a hemlet.
Its not about how far or how fast you're going really, its that you can't accouter for what other road users are doing.
I don't really get the comparison with walking. Partly because I think the speed you are travelling on a bike would have an impact on how hard your head would hit the ground...but also because if you are walking you generally wouldn't flip over and land head first which is much more likely on a bike...and on a bike your hands are occupied so you have less time to get them into position to break your fall.
I used to wear a helmet all the time until a few years ago, when there was a period of 3-4 months when I didn't have one yet still rode to work every day. Bit of a bad habit to get into really, I still wear one most of the time, and definitely when on longer rides with all the lycra etc, but for nipping into town, going to work or something like that I tend to not pick one up now.
About 9 months ago I had a couple of fairly heavy crashes (all my own fault) and in one of them banged my head quite hard on the pavement, luckily whilst wearing a helmet. A bit of blood, but mainly from my glasses digging in to my forehead, and just a small bump to the head.
Wearing a helmet for me is sort of a confidence thing now - when I'm wearing one, I feel more able to tackle steep descents at speed, stay on busy roads in heavy traffic, etc - and I'm starting to get back into the habit of wearing one all the time.
It seems most people just don't want to mess up their hair.
so their whole argument is that you can still damage your head internally whilst wearing a helmet so why bother in the first place?
turns out my dad could have died on saturday if he wasn't wearing one, but luckily he was. his helmet is a write-off now, though.
apart from the whole "if you ARE wearing one drivers MIGHT behave more aggressively towards you / with undue care and respect" but that's up for debate
by wearing a helmet is victim blaming.
I'm saying the argument itself is victim blaming.
just to even up the stats a bit
(Sorry. Glad your dad is alive x)
there are cycle paths everywhere and the drivers are ridiculously deferential towards cyclists though.
Not really intersted in the health/death side of any argument tbh
Left it on the train a few years back and never replaced it.
This thread has reminded me that I should really go and buy a new one. There's no real good reason for me not wearing a helmet other than complacency!
a couple of years ago. It really hurt and it split my helmet in two. It terrifies me to think what might have happened to my head.
really like the catlike ones.
Remember, pros wear helmets, and being pro is cool.
I just got some yellow bar tape to replace the pink shit that's currently on my bike so I think I'd look super cool.
did not look all that cool when I think about it.
Can't believe you didn't jump into the nearest shop, get a lucozade and a trek bar, then cycle up to hand it to them in an act of deference.
http://www.wigglestatic.com/product-media/5360091905/Giro_air-attack-helmet-black_2013.jpg?w=430&h=430&a=7 Not sure if it's supposed to be special or something though, like the helmet equivalent of shaving your legs.
will make your head hot and offer no speed gains unless you're racing. Looks swish though.
(or live in London)
came off after hitting a small patch of oil that had leaked from a lorry or something at the bottom of a hill. got a serious head injury and had quite a long spell of rehab and time off work (6 months or so). If he hadn't been wearing a helmet he would've died or at least had a permanent, debilitating injury. But I guess if he hadn't have been wearing a helmet that oil spill would've noticed and made itself more visible or given him distance or something
& nobody has mentioned one of the anti helmet brigadesmain points that wearing a helmet is less safe as your head is less manoeuverable
they posit that you will naturally tuck your head out of the way when you fall off, but when you wear a helmt you cant because of the extra mass/ size & that chin straps can get caught
i dont agree with this & seeing the state of the t'other halfs helmet after she had her crash last year backs up that they are useful
they always have heated debates about this on cycle forums
is probably an example of such
Once I was cycling too fast in the rain with dodgy brake-pads and no helmet. A cyclist pulled out of a side road in front of me and I ran into the side of her front wheel. As I flew gracefully over the handlebars and my folded-in-half front wheel, my head made glancing contact with her helmet and I landed in front of a truck. I had a bit of a headache after.
If she hadn't been wearing a helmet then I might have missed on the way over and wouldn't have had a sore head.
you wouldn't have had a sore head!
It was the 1990s. People didn't know about head injuries then.
I wear a helmet now, but am firmly of the belief that they are as useful as a chocolate teapot when cycling around London. If I have an accident on my bike then it will either result in a minor graze or my messy demise under the wheels of something huge. The likelihood of anything in between is tiny.
there would be no way i would be doing it without a helmet.