Cycling UK Forum

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

drossall wrote:

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Not sure what you are asking?
But I will be wearing a helmet as usual as that's my choice, I never go out without one and that's because its easier to wear all the time than to make a decision when or where to don one.
Were you wearing a helmet?

No. I don't normally wear a helmet when I'm walking into town. In view of my experience, and your advice never to go out without one, do you think that I should?

Sorry...........your walking......................

your walking what?

If you meant you're walking then exactly the same could be said - but you're cycling, why would you need a magic hat?

The logical application of 'I've fallen once whilst doing this so I need wear a helmet' would have me wearing a helmet to get out of bed, to sit on a sofa, to go down the stairs, to walk, to do all sorts of things...

We have VERY low beams in our bedroom - I REALLY do need to wear a helmet getting out of the bed sometimes.

Love these comments - think I'd have the same problem, based on previous history I would have to wear a helmet all the time, apart from when I'm cycling

Hi,

[XAP]Bob wrote:

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

drossall wrote:No. I don't normally wear a helmet when I'm walking into town. In view of my experience, and your advice never to go out without one, do you think that I should?

Sorry...........your walking......................

your walking what?

If you meant you're walking then exactly the same could be said - but you're cycling, why would you need a magic hat?

The logical application of 'I've fallen once whilst doing this so I need wear a helmet' would have me wearing a helmet to get out of bed, to sit on a sofa, to go down the stairs, to walk, to do all sorts of things...

I misunderstood the activity and thought that they were cycling.
Getting out of bed, that's taking it to extreme, you are joking.
I know from bitter experience that I have had quite a head bash bending down whilst my dog has sat up and its hurts
But falling out of bed onto a wooden floor from a bunk.
Falls elderly yep, won't deny.

Hi,

Vorpal wrote:

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Not for one moment did I think that I would fall foul of badly designed cycle paths.

Why do you wear a helmet, if you don't expect to fall?

There is a difference between expect and actual risk.
I think that we are already at the point of its personal choice, I am against compulsory, unless stats later prove over whelmingly its safer.
Like with motorcycles and car seat belts.

Anyway my main reason for wearing a helmet is not for safety from collision, I have said this before in other posts other subjects.

It keeps rain off head.
I have a peak and keeps sun out of my eyes, flys too.
Not bad on insulating fore head if worn correctly.
I don't have problem with sweating at all, I would even go as far as saying that not wearing a helmet in sunny weather may mean your head is hotter?
I am glad I had something between my head and the ground that day.

My pelvis injury is bad enough, in years to come as I get older it could be a game changer as it would and has been for many cyclist.
I don't go along with my head not hitting the ground without the extra thickness of the helmet.

Anecdotal is not a word I use except to quote another user of that word.
My helmet is cracked, that's a fact not a quaint story.

I regard the word as mostly misused misunderstood / changed use and a stopper / whatever in a conversation.

Lesson- I am probably going to pick my rides more carefully in the future.

[XAP]Bob wrote:

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

drossall wrote:No. I don't normally wear a helmet when I'm walking into town. In view of my experience, and your advice never to go out without one, do you think that I should?

Sorry...........your walking......................

your walking what?

If you meant you're walking then exactly the same could be said - but you're cycling, why would you need a magic hat?

The logical application of 'I've fallen once whilst doing this so I need wear a helmet' would have me wearing a helmet to get out of bed, to sit on a sofa, to go down the stairs, to walk, to do all sorts of things...

It is another bizarre hypocrisy...


A fall with a cyclist and a head injury is an unequivocal justification for helmet use.....

Yet in cohort studies a previous injury is a factor in over 25% of all head injuries.

Why is it only cyclist yet again and the majority of people who would benefit (by this argument) 350,000 of allegedly avoidable head injuries are ignored

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

[XAP]Bob wrote:

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

Sorry...........your walking......................

your walking what?

If you meant you're walking then exactly the same could be said - but you're cycling, why would you need a magic hat?

The logical application of 'I've fallen once whilst doing this so I need wear a helmet' would have me wearing a helmet to get out of bed, to sit on a sofa, to go down the stairs, to walk, to do all sorts of things...

I misunderstood the activity and thought that they were cycling.
Getting out of bed, that's taking it to extreme, you are joking.
I know from bitter experience that I have had quite a head bash bending down whilst my dog has sat up and its hurts
But falling out of bed onto a wooden floor from a bunk.
Falls elderly yep, won't deny.

So why does cycling get special logic?

A fall is a fall, and a fall walking is basically equivalent to a fall cycling.

In terms of time exposure the last time I looked getting out of bed was actually *more* dangerous than cycling (assuming people take less than 45 seconds to get out of bed).
So why would you not advocate helmets for an activity with risk of falls and potentially death?

NATURAL ANKLING wrote: . . . . . . . .
I think that we are already at the point of its personal choice, I am against compulsory, unless stats later prove over whelmingly its safer.
Like with motorcycles and car seat belts. . . . . . .

Which is pretty much what I thought until I read "Risk" by John Adams.

Chapter 7 : Road Safety 1 : Seat Belts

Chapter 8: Road Safety 2 : More Filtering
Section on Motorcycle Helmets

I was thinking of trying to paraphrase it here, but I would only mangle a carefully presented story.

If you have some time, track it down through your library.
The reservation fee was the best 70pence I have spent in a long while.

Hi,
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/ ... K-BOOK.pdf

Not read all the details yet.

Its interesting that, when I followed one of the first cars in the UK to have ABS, downhill, the driver was driving very fast to the point of nearly leaving the road, this surprised me, but of course he had ABS as a safety net.
And you will see plenty 4X4's in ditches when it snows in the UK.
Like studs on cars in Sweden, they drive faster.
IIRC South West police took charge of three sierra cosworth 4X4's, two were written off by over zealous police drivers, third was locked in a garage.

Sort of perceived safety.
If all car drivers rode two wheels for some time before they went to four I think we would have safer drivers.

So its perceived that cyclist with helmets are nothing for car drivers to worry about.
Wearing a helmet on a bicycle is a bit like winning the lottery you never know when it will come.
Same for any accident really.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:I misunderstood the activity and thought that they were cycling.

You didn't really misunderstand it; I chose deliberately not to mention specifically what I was doing at the time. It was exactly the way that the thread has gone that I was trying to explore.

If I understand it correctly, for a fall when walking, you consider the most reasonable response to be to try to prevent a repetition, with foot spikes. Using spikes as a first response makes sense*, because engineered safeguards that prevent accidents are higher up the pyramid of safety than PPE, such as helmets, which are always the last option (because they do nothing to prevent accidents). Having done that, you do not appear to feel that it is necessary to wear a helmet.

What I'm struggling with is why you take a different approach when cycling? I could understand it if, in both cases, you used only one measure, or if in both cases you used both. But why use different logic in one from the other?

* Assuming of course that you don't think that it is reasonable to go to the top of the pyramid and eliminate the danger, either by melting the ice or by not going out in the first place.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:http://www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/RISK-BOOK.pdf

Thank you for that. I must have missed it first time around due to having the hardcopy to hand.

I noticed that Adams has updated the Preface (2008) for the Brazilian translation.
As the original book was published in 1995, I was wondering if there was any sort of update / new material.
And here it is :-
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... leiro1.pdf

UPDATE: Peak Oil Eh, What happened to that ?

[XAP]Bob wrote:In terms of time exposure the last time I looked getting out of bed was actually *more* dangerous than cycling (assuming people take less than 45 seconds to get out of bed).
So why would you not advocate helmets for an activity with risk of falls and potentially death?

You're kidding, it took me 20 minutes to get out of bed this morning and I thought I was doing well!

Pastychomper wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:In terms of time exposure the last time I looked getting out of bed was actually *more* dangerous than cycling (assuming people take less than 45 seconds to get out of bed).
So why would you not advocate helmets for an activity with risk of falls and potentially death?

You're kidding, it took me 20 minutes to get out of bed this morning and I thought I was doing well!

There is no "best" way to compare.

We had a thread earlier where someone tried to get everything measured in miles because the suited them.

Shame was that cycling was still safer per mile

There was on example that illustrates this. One "Road Safety Guru" worked out that if you looked at pedestrian injuries and compared traffic groups per mile, then there is a far greater risk of being killed or injured by a cyclist than a White Van, or some other groups

Of course that doesn't account for traffic miles where pedestrians are absent, and a number of the confounding faciors.

Personally to me the relevant number is those actually going through the hospital door. These are unequivocal as they have happened, yet no-one cares at all about the majority of them, discounting them as inconvenient, acceptable or simply swept under the carpet

I don't think you can think only about numbers and avoid exposure. I'd imagine that the numbers going through hospital doors with head injuries from riding pogo sticks is very low. There's a reason for that, and it's nothing to do with how dangerous or safe pogo sticks might be.

It's true that it can be a complex issue. One of the things that keeps the death rate for pedestrians, per mile driven by cars, lower is the number of miles done on motorways and dual carriageways, where there are either no pedestrians at all, or very few. By contrast, a greater percentage of cycle mileage is done in the presence of pedestrians.

It can help to think carefully about precisely what question you are asking. For example, in measuring the safety of cycling versus (say) walking for participants, the thing that would interest me is by which mode to get to a certain place - so, I want to compare the risks per mile. However, if you're interested in how you spend your leisure time, measuring per hour might be more relevant. The comparisons come out different. Nonetheless, if you don't think about exposure questions, it becomes very unclear what your measures mean.

Cunobelin wrote:[youtube]S6FI_MJSMSw[/youtube]

That's interesting because I fitted the studded tyre to the rear, driving wheel, because I found I was slipping backwards down a hill I was climbing near Chalton in Hampshire because of lack of grip.
In retrospect I would have been better to fit three studded tyres.