"Decide for yourself"

[The utility cyclist]

pjclinch wrote "off-road MTB. Would you think you need a helmet?"
nope, I never wore one doing downhill, there's no need for one.
pjclinch wrote "There is nothing wrong with a helmet per-se for an individual that wants to wear one"
Yes there is, not only does it increase danger for the wearer, it increases my danger and aids removal of my and all others freedoms including participation. Added to which it promotes victim blaming and focus away from the real issues.

I'll get to the rest later.

[pjclinch]

pjclinch wrote "off-road MTB. Would you think you need a helmet?"
nope, I never wore one doing downhill, there's no need for one.
pjclinch wrote "There is nothing wrong with a helmet per-se for an individual that wants to wear one"
Yes there is, not only does it increase danger for the wearer, it increases my danger and aids removal of my and all others freedoms including participation. Added to which it promotes victim blaming and focus away from the real issues.

You're making a mistake that's common enough to have a formal name, "ecological fallacy".
What that is is that assuming if you have something that works for the benefit of a population then it must be good for every member of that population. A natural and seemingly reasonable assumption, but one that isn't true when you look a bit harder. So it's good for wildebeest to chug around in big herds, it keeps the population as a whole safer. However, for the unfortunate former-herd members being Lunch that day for the local lions, it didn't really work out so great...

Whether a helmet increases the danger for a notional wearer is very much down to the particular context of that wearer. In those cases where they are naturally risk-averse and it's given them the psychological boost to get out there at all and feel they can be brave enough to do vehicular cycling it's probably helped them to all those health benefits associated with being a cyclist. To a risk loving adrenaline junkie it might well add to their peril. The problem is that it's different for different individuals. It's a common mistake to take a population study and assume the broad conclusions must apply to everyone, but as in the case of saying nuts are good for people on the whole, those with extreme nut allergies may well beg to differ. This is the crucial problem with population studies: the data is too coarse grained to accurately predict anything much for individuals, but individuals are what ride bikes. You really can't reliably say to someone who you only know as someone who rides a bike with a helmet that it puts them in greater danger. Or in less danger.

And again, it is not a helmet that causes everything in the final paragraph, it is the mistaken over-promotion of helmets along with the idea that they're surely life-savers that is the problem. Helmets, and what you do with them and what you say about them, are all different things you shouldn't lump together as one.

Pete.

[Cunobelin]

One of the problems with cycle helmet studies is that they are all about cyclists!

They "prove" that in the very narrow context and scope of that study that helmets may reduce injuries.

But in doing so misses the point entirely that they are studying the wrong groups and that is where the hypocrisy and bias shows.

If you take cohort studies and look at ALL head injuries it is enlightening that cyclists do not show up as a major feature.

A classic is Thornhill (et al) who studied head injuries in Glasgow.... they examined every head injury that came in and the breakdown is informative.

The characteristics of the cohort agreed with previous surveys1: 1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

So lets assume for a moment that a helmet works ...........

Do you study their effectiveness for the 61% of head injuries that feature alcohol?

Do you study their effectiveness in the 43% of head injuries that are simple falls?

Do you study their effectiveness in the 34% that were assaults?



Not at all, you accept all these injuries and spend millions studying the effectiveness in a small group, and the worst sin of all, do not apply any of teh "findings" to the majority of victims, and dismiss helmets for the at risk groups as "silly"




Imagine the fuss if there was a potential "silver bullet" cure for all cancer, and you ignored all the biggies like prostate, breast, lung and bowel and only studied its use in an obscure and rare endocrine cancers


Yet that is exactly what the medical profession has been allowed to get away with

[Cugel]

.....
So lets assume for a moment that a helmet works ...........

Do you study their effectiveness for the 61% of head injuries that feature alcohol?

Do you study their effectiveness in the 43% of head injuries that are simple falls?

Do you study their effectiveness in the 34% that were assaults?



Not at all, you accept all these injuries and spend millions studying the effectiveness in a small group, and the worst sin of all, do not apply any of teh "findings" to the majority of victims, and dismiss helmets for the at risk groups as "silly"

........

I gave this thread the title: "Decide for yourself". This is meant to be read as an ironic remark because I believe that we humans within current consumer societies are dissuaded from doing any such thing. Immense pressures of both the commercial and the ideological ilk twist our minds up behind our backs until we give in and buy-wear the pointless article, an ineffective and spurious polystyrene helmet, in this instance.

Your post illustrates the illogic of this "free market". It isn't populated with rational buyers making decisions in their own interest but with people pressurised by every psychological trick in the book into buying and behaving as various cabals and syndicates prefer - cabals and syndicates such as: helmet manufactures & purveyors; lobbies of motoring organisations looking for a whataboutism to distract from their own lethal practices; mass media seeking pariahs and scapegoats; little-hitlers in various cycling organisations; even holier-than-thou cyclists!

Of course, these same cabals and syndicates may well come to see an opportunity to perform their trick in some other domain. There must surely be as yet huge untapped markets for "safety equipment" in many other sports - perhaps even for everyday activities such as being a pedestrian or doing the garden?

The gutter press is also adept at creating new pariah groups on a regular basis. Who will be next, when they have tired of persecuting their usual groups? What other innocent behavioural lack will be deemed proto-criminal?

Cugel

[Cunobelin]

This has always been the issue

I firmly believe that you should "decide for yourself" however I do feel strongly that it should be an informed choice

[Mike Sales]

There is only a part of one side of this controversy which wants to dictate to others.

[mjr]

An example of CUK now apparently supporting helmets in practice, from viewtopic.php?f=1&t=121278 :

Watch this space. It may be worth mentioning that the linked Cycling UK webpage was last updated yesterday. The "events" link therein seems to have no specific relevance to BBR, just the various published events of Member Groups and other Affiliated Groups.

All 6 people actually cycling on that page (rather than sat on bikes not moving or stood by bikes) are helmet users and all 4 I can see appear to be using them incorrect (2 wonky, 2 twisted, 1 cut off top of picture, 1 too small to see). Thanks to the group shot near the bottom, even the vast majority of people not cycling are helmetted

[LinusR]

Cycling as safe and, above all, enjoyable. https://www.cyclinguk.org/publication/cycle-magazine-june-july-2018

[pjclinch]

And of course in the CUK Facebook page where the new Cycle cover is shown, the inevitable muppetry has popped up in the comments about showing normal people doing normal stuff in their normal clothes being a dreadful example...

Pete.

[LinusR]

And of course in the CUK Facebook page where the new Cycle cover is shown, the inevitable muppetry has popped up in the comments about showing normal people doing normal stuff in their normal clothes being a dreadful example...

I noted that. Funny how walkers don't get the same attention. Front cover of The Ramblers magazine.

[Cunobelin]

Lets take a serious look at these pictures.

They have no real agenda apart from price!

Most cover photographs are from a stock library and then the Magazine pays a fee.

I would suggest that in most cases if there was a choice between helmeted, non-helmeted and a badly fitting helmet, the one the magazine was allowed to use for free would be the one on the cover

[bovlomov]

I would suggest that in most cases if there was a choice between helmeted, non-helmeted and a badly fitting helmet, the one the magazine was allowed to use for free would be the one on the cover

For that reason I have suggested, in an earlier thread, that any good photographers here could submit to the magazine their own photos of unhelmeted riders. If these were good quality images that cost the magazine nothing, the editor may well use them in preference to the usual stock images.

However, despite the current cover images superficially resembling spontaneous snapshots, they probably take some time to set up. Finding photogenic cyclists with smiles on their faces is a challenge in itself.

[LinusR]

Lets take a serious look at these pictures.

They have no real agenda apart from price!

Most cover photographs are from a stock library and then the Magazine pays a fee.

I would suggest that in most cases if there was a choice between helmeted, non-helmeted and a badly fitting helmet, the one the magazine was allowed to use for free would be the one on the cover

Wrong. The images were taken by Joolze Dymond a professional photographer of a women's cycling organisation in Bradford. The photos were commissioned by Cycling UK. These are real cyclists doing a great job encouraging people to cycle more. See another image from the same photo shoot below.

See this https://twitter.com/Joolzephoto/status/990267855215251457 and this https://twitter.com/Joolzephoto/status/1001717522578722816

[Cugel]

.......

However, despite the current cover images superficially resembling spontaneous snapshots, they probably take some time to set up. Finding photogenic cyclists with smiles on their faces is a challenge in itself.

I hereby volunteer, although my leers and smirks may not be thought to lie within the category "smiles"; and my photogenical allure may be a matter of perhaps peculiar taste. Even my cycling postures might be considered abnormal........

..... Well, I can take nice photos, if that helps. I promise not to inveigle any models that come my way into doing a "shoot" for naked bike ride day.

Cugel

[Cunobelin]

Lets take a serious look at these pictures.

They have no real agenda apart from price!

Most cover photographs are from a stock library and then the Magazine pays a fee.

I would suggest that in most cases if there was a choice between helmeted, non-helmeted and a badly fitting helmet, the one the magazine was allowed to use for free would be the one on the cover

Wrong. The images were taken by Joolze Dymond a professional photographer of a women's cycling organisation in Bradford. The photos were commissioned by Cycling UK. These are real cyclists doing a great job encouraging people to cycle more. See another image from the same photo shoot below.

See this https://twitter.com/Joolzephoto/status/990267855215251457 and this https://twitter.com/Joolzephoto/status/1001717522578722816

Not "wrong" at all... unless you can prove that all cover photos are commissioned.

The fact this one isn't changes nothing... that last time there was a discussion on this subject the copyright of the photo in question belonged to Trek who waived royalties. As I said MOST will be stock photos