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

[Cunobelin]

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"!!

It is obvious from your answer that you did not see the video in the link.

[Cunobelin]

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.

Thank you for your reply, and illustrating my point with the "OMG... you are hysterical if you question the appropriateness of limiting helmets to cyclists"

Now lets ask the same question again?

Why is it so silly?

If you were to fall on your way to the shops, why should you not mitigate or prevent a head injury?

Does it hurt less, is the damage less, and the consequences less because you are not on a bike?

[tatanab]

A story -
A few weeks ago my sister and I were visiting our aged mother in hospital. She was there partly because she had fallen in her bedroom and split her head (not for the first time either). At one point my sister berated me for not wearing a helmet when cycling. I thought this a little odd since the evidence in front of us was that a helmet should be worn when walking across a bedroom.

[pjclinch]

A story -
A few weeks ago my sister and I were visiting our aged mother in hospital. She was there partly because she had fallen in her bedroom and split her head (not for the first time either). At one point my sister berated me for not wearing a helmet when cycling. I thought this a little odd since the evidence in front of us was that a helmet should be worn when walking across a bedroom.

My daughter rides without a helmet. She's crashed a few times, but never hit her head. She has been to A&E with mild concussion on a couple of occasions, one falling off a sofa and getting the corner of a coffee table right between the eyes, and another falling after getting very dizzy on a roundabout in a playground. At her old primary school, where I teach Bikeability, the school office are so routinely presented with head injuries from playground falls that they have form letters to send home about it and sheets of "I've banged my head!" stickers.
Those latter falls are exactly of the sort that cycle helmets are designed to mitigate the injuries from (low energy, no motor vehicle involved),

Pete.

[pjclinch]

Back to the "hypocrisy" thing, just seen a possibly apposite quote in a Zoe Williams piece (nothing to do with cycling) in the Graun:

“Hypocrisy” is too strong a word; you need coherent beliefs in order to breach them

[deliquium]

^ like

[meic]

It is however effectively redefining hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy has a dictionary definition and it isnt the same meaning as that.

[pjclinch]

It is however effectively redefining hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy has a dictionary definition and it isnt the same meaning as that.

But it does take in to account that "hypocrisy" is taken as a strong insult, and you don't generally get people to reflect on their beliefs by upsetting them with a label perceived as strongly negative. They'll probably think you're hysterical, or something like that...

[meic]

Yes the hypocrisy of an MP who publicly condemned homosexuals while keeping a rent boy in the days between legalisation and approval is quite different to the "hypocrisy" of a staunch vegetarian who wears leather.
It is real hypocrisy to call for compulsory helmets and not wear one yourself but it isnt hypocrisy to call for cycle helmets while believing that walking doesnt need them. People doing that are honest and consistent in their words and deeds, just not consistent (according to others) in their logic.

[mjr]

It is real hypocrisy to call for compulsory helmets and not wear one yourself but it isnt hypocrisy to call for cycle helmets while believing that walking doesnt need them. People doing that are honest and consistent in their words and deeds, just not consistent (according to others) in their logic.

Requiring dishonesty is effectively redefining hypocrisy. It has a dictionary definition (I quoted the one in wordnet on the previous page) and that isn't part of it.

[meic]

Requiring dishonesty is effectively redefining hypocrisy.

Then it is a good thing that nobody has done that.

[Cunobelin]

To me hypocrisy is advocating helmets for cyclists, but dismissing helmets for the groups that present more frequently as "very silly"

[mjr]

Requiring dishonesty is effectively redefining hypocrisy.

Then it is a good thing that nobody has done that.

It seemed to be the difference between the hypocrisy and not-hypocrisy groups in your explanation. Feel free to clarify.

[CJ]

I do have a scull cap for under the helmet that I used to wear in the winter, so I could possibly wear it and the helmet now, but I can't see why I should wear a helmet when it's cold, but not when it's warm. Dual standards?

Or hypocrisy? I don't think so.

I also find my helmet, a top-of-the-range Giro model chosen for it's 'excellent' ventilation, too hot and uncomfortable to tolerate - except when the ambient temperature is below or near to freezing. But since ice DEFINITELY increases the risk of a fall, I think that's entirely logical.

I will also wear the otherwise horrid thing when test-riding a new or unfamiliar bike, one that's been assembled by somebody else, a tandem with a blind stoker, or when mountain-biking, or any kind of riding I consider to be unusually risky.

But I don't do any of those things very often. And if you could convince me that a helmet was necessary for what I call 'normal', 'low-risk' travel and transport cycling, you will only have convinced me that ALL cycling activities are too ridiculously hazardous for any sensible person to consider 'normal', or undertake on a daily basis.

[mjr]

I also find my helmet, a top-of-the-range Giro model chosen for it's 'excellent' ventilation, too hot and uncomfortable to tolerate - except when the ambient temperature is below or near to freezing. But since ice DEFINITELY increases the risk of a fall, I think that's entirely logical.

I will also wear the otherwise horrid thing when test-riding a new or unfamiliar bike, one that's been assembled by somebody else, a tandem with a blind stoker, or when mountain-biking, or any kind of riding I consider to be unusually risky.

Is that risk compensation?

Do you take precautions when ice is likely?

I'm surprised that CJ acts as if helmets can be expected to reduce injuries, which is far from shown in real-world data AFAICT.