"You wear a hat, why not wear a helmet?"

[Boyd]

Sorry to hear that and I hope the incompetent motorists were prosecuted but helmets are not designed for either situation, so really shouldn't be a reason for anyone to use one.

no idea who the car driver was But I wouldn't have needed so many stiches if I had been wearing a helmet as was shown in second accident I quoted (and others in between). The motor cyclist was made to take a course. He injured his back. Only a young lad, so his main punishment will be the increase in insurance. I actually look on it as a glass three quarters full ie the compo. Although one toe is still fractured after nearly a year? Which I think guarantes arthritis (fracture on the joint).

How can you know that for sure?
Here James Ellington suffers a huge cut to his head, he was wearing a helmet whilst riding a motorcycle, maybe, just maybe that might not have happened if he wasn't, maybe if he was actually thinking I'm doing something reasonably risky he would have ridden with more care thus avoiding the incident in the first place. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38925613
Then note the presenter of this BBC Four programme, she's riding a motorbike between locations (and not just going around the corner) but doesn't die because she's not riding like a jerk despite not wearing a helmet (4 minutes in and other occasions) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyCmXNO5wnI

Because the scratches on my helmet were directly above my forehead.
You talk about riding like jerk what has that to do with the two incidents I was using? You are also suggesting that cyclist never make mistakes. Making a mistake is not the same as riding like a jerk. The suggestion that someone NOT wearing a helmet when riding a motorbike would protect his head from a huge cut to his head is utterly ludicrous.

[[XAP]Bob]

The vast majority of cyclists manage to get along quite happily without head injury.

In fact from the statistics we have when a population of cyclists increases its helmet wearing then they increase their accident rate (correlation != causation).

Another group of people who don't wear helmets but occasionally suffer head injuries is ... pedestrians.
The injury rates are about the same (on a per mile travelled) basis) so I assume you wear a helmet when walking to the shops?

There is very little doubt that a helmet can save you from some minor lacerations (which is what you are saying here) but avoiding the incidents altogether is even more effective, and a leather hat would almost certainly do the same in the vast majority of cases without the various weight and size based issues helmets bring.

Riding defensively is a far better protection than a hat. And by defensively I don't mean submissively.

[Boyd]

The injury rates are about the same (on a per mile travelled) basis) so I assume you wear a helmet when walking to the shops?

Silly boy with a silly question. The faster you are traveling the worse the injury. Obviously.

[Boyd]

.
but avoiding the incidents altogether is even more effective

The only way avoid the incidents in question is not to cycle. How am I to ride defensively against a motorcyclist who lost control and ploughed into the back of me?

[Boyd]

and a leather hat would almost certainly do the same in the vast majority of cases without the various weight and size based issues helmets bring.

The helmet in question protrudes a good inch forward of my face keeping my handsome face from scraping along the floor. If I get anymore scars on my face I will lose my nivea face modeling contract.

[mjr]

The injury rates are about the same (on a per mile travelled) basis) so I assume you wear a helmet when walking to the shops?

Silly boy with a silly question. The faster you are traveling the worse the injury. Obviously.

So surely the benefit for the lower speeds of walking would be even greater, wouldn't it? So why don't you use one then?

And cycle helmets are only tested for 12mph or so, so you cycle slower than that, then?

[Boyd]

The injury rates are about the same (on a per mile travelled) basis) so I assume you wear a helmet when walking to the shops?

Silly boy with a silly question. The faster you are traveling the worse the injury. Obviously.

So surely the benefit for the lower speeds of walking would be even greater, wouldn't it? So why don't you use one then?

And cycle helmets are only tested for 12mph or so, so you cycle slower than that, then?

You are so silly shopping with helmet on, really? Such silly suggestion.
"12mph or so, so you cycle slower than that, then?" Even with the question mark you appear to be telling me not asking me. Why shouldn't I cycle at less than 12mph? The latter is a question!

[Cunobelin]

.
but avoiding the incidents altogether is even more effective

The only way avoid the incidents in question is not to cycle. How am I to ride defensively against a motorcyclist who lost control and ploughed into the back of me?

I did with a car

Cams Hall is a hill with traffic lights

Car coming from behind and lights changing, My observations was that he was not going to stop at lights and pulled into the slip lane

Car passed straight through where I would have ben and in a cloud of burning rubber stopped half way across the lights

Link to previous thread and video

[Cunobelin]

The injury rates are about the same (on a per mile travelled) basis) so I assume you wear a helmet when walking to the shops?

Silly boy with a silly question. The faster you are traveling the worse the injury. Obviously.

So surely the benefit for the lower speeds of walking would be even greater, wouldn't it? So why don't you use one then?

And cycle helmets are only tested for 12mph or so, so you cycle slower than that, then?

This goes back to the hypocrisy of the whole helmet debate and cyclists

Cyclists suffer very few head injuries compared to other groups. As shown before there are many groups including drivers who present more commonly

Yet because the identical injury somehow hurts less, is less traumatic and the prognosis is so much better if you suffer the injury OFF your bicycle these are not worth preventing or mitigating

No-one has yet been able to explain that hypocrisy apart from the "very silly" claim

[Boyd]

.
but avoiding the incidents altogether is even more effective

The only way avoid the incidents in question is not to cycle. How am I to ride defensively against a motorcyclist who lost control and ploughed into the back of me?

I did with a car

Cams Hall is a hill with traffic lights

Car coming from behind and lights changing, My observations was that he was not going to stop at lights and pulled into the slip lane

Car passed straight through where I would have ben and in a cloud of burning rubber stopped half way across the lights

Link to previous thread and video

Now you are being silly. How was I to know a motor cyclist was going to loose control. You need to think through what you typed. You are blaming me for not getting out of the way on an unlit road in the dark with the lights of other cars coming towards me. I am according to you supposed to be looking over my shoulder at all times. Silly, very silly.
PS you don't know if you avoided an accident the car could have gone round you and very likely would off. Your are being hysterical.
PPS the first thing the insurance company asked me was "were you wearing helmet" "yes and you are paying for a new one"!!

[Boyd]

Silly boy with a silly question. The faster you are traveling the worse the injury. Obviously.

So surely the benefit for the lower speeds of walking would be even greater, wouldn't it? So why don't you use one then?

And cycle helmets are only tested for 12mph or so, so you cycle slower than that, then?

This goes back to the hypocrisy of the whole helmet debate and cyclists

Cyclists suffer very few head injuries compared to other groups. As shown before there are many groups including drivers who present more commonly

Yet because the identical injury somehow hurts less, is less traumatic and the prognosis is so much better if you suffer the injury OFF your bicycle these are not worth preventing or mitigating

No-one has yet been able to explain that hypocrisy apart from the "very silly" claim

Implying I should wear helmet to the shops is down right daft. Are you sure hypocrisy is an appropriate word for people who believe in wearing an helmet? Again you sound hysterical.

[mjr]

This goes back to the hypocrisy of the whole helmet debate and cyclists

Cyclists suffer very few head injuries compared to other groups. As shown before there are many groups including drivers who present more commonly

Yet because the identical injury somehow hurts less, is less traumatic and the prognosis is so much better if you suffer the injury OFF your bicycle these are not worth preventing or mitigating

No-one has yet been able to explain that hypocrisy apart from the "very silly" claim

Implying I should wear helmet to the shops is down right daft. Are you sure hypocrisy is an appropriate word for people who believe in wearing an helmet? Again you sound hysterical.

It only sounds hysterical to helmet believers. What word would you prefer for someone who says it's worth using a helmet in one situation but says it's "down right daft" to use it in a situation with a very similar injury risk profile?

I'd probably say "inconsistent", "absurd" or "contradictory", but "an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction" seems arguable for someone who uses a helmet for cycling but not walking.

[pjclinch]

I'd probably say "inconsistent", "absurd" or "contradictory", but "an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction" seems arguable for someone who uses a helmet for cycling but not walking.

Though of course it does depend on the particular flavour of cycling. MTB through woods with lots of low branches, attacked with an "if I don't fall off I wasn't trying hard enough", is a very different matter to chugging to work without breaking a sweat. Mileage, as ever, varies.

It does, however, seem to be very common to assume any mode of cycling in any place must warrant a helmet, and that doesn't really stand up terribly well. A pretty obvious case in point for me is teaching a Bikeability playground session at a primary school. Compared to the risks for the same children, in the same playground, playing intersecting games of chase, football, hopscotch etc. in their lunch break the cycling risks are negligible (fewer children, a single activity and much closer supervision), and the consequences for a fall off a bike while practising Bikeability 1 skills without a helmet wouldn't be any worse than a falling footballer if both hit their heads: a bit of a cry, off to the school nurse, an "I banged my head!" sticker, an "I've been brave!" sticker, and some TLC and a form letter home at the end of the day. However, the chasers/footballers/hopscotchers just get on with it every day in their school uniforms, while the cyclists are required by the local authority to wear crash helmets (and if I stick to the letter of the P&K generic risk assessment, high viz tabards too!). This isn't about risk, it's simply an assumption that cycling is dangerous and productive of head injuries. The actual evidence shows otherwise, but if you've bought in to the assumption then the evidence will be disregarded and rationalisations made that fit the assumption. And once you've rationalised one set of risks as very different to another that are actually similar you're pretty much signing yourself up for double standards.

Pete.

[Mick F]

Pete.
Nicely put, and utterly correct.

[[XAP]Bob]

The only way avoid the incidents in question is not to cycle. How am I to ride defensively against a motorcyclist who lost control and ploughed into the back of me?

I did with a car

Cams Hall is a hill with traffic lights

Car coming from behind and lights changing, My observations was that he was not going to stop at lights and pulled into the slip lane

Car passed straight through where I would have ben and in a cloud of burning rubber stopped half way across the lights

Link to previous thread and video

Now you are being silly. How was I to know a motor cyclist was going to loose control. You need to think through what you typed. You are blaming me for not getting out of the way on an unlit road in the dark with the lights of other cars coming towards me. I am according to you supposed to be looking over my shoulder at all times. Silly, very silly.
PS you don't know if you avoided an accident the car could have gone round you and very likely would off. Your are being hysterical.
PPS the first thing the insurance company asked me was "were you wearing helmet" "yes and you are paying for a new one"!!

Because he would have shown in your wing mirrors...

Or do you not take that basic precaution?

Whilst cycling at less than 12mph I do hope you manage not to accelerate due to gravity (since 12mph is basically a static fall).
The reality is that head injuries are rare, and that helmets do little to mitigate anything other than minor soft tissue damage. Serious injuries aren't helped by the design criteria of cycle helmets - if you were to decide to wear a motorcycle class helmet I'd be far more likely to support you.

Cyclists are statistically safer (marginally) then pedestrians- any argument that applies for one applies to the other...