Cycling UK Forum

Cunobelin wrote:

De Sisti wrote:A non-helmet wearing member of our club (early 60s) was knocked off his bike by a taxi last week.
He has now announced that in future he will be wearing a helmet. He didn't allude to whether his
head was injured in the collision, but he mentioned damage to his crank.

An ageing acquaintance of mine has had 3 head injuries in the last year, all required CT, and two required admission, one for 5 days


They still choose no to wear a helmet around the house

Which is the point, anecdotes and other peoples decisions are irrelevant. The individual should exercise an informed choice on evidence.

I'd perhaps even substitute "...can do what the hell they like, whether informed, uninformed, or simply because they like the colour and enjoy wearing a hat"

I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion; make your own mind up.

I've seen and experienced (*) enough to be reasonably confident that you are better off with one than without one, and the downsides of wearing one seem not to be significant.

(*) put very simply I probably wouldn't be writing this without one.

cheers

Brucey wrote:I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion; make your own mind up.

I couldn't care if people wear them or not.
Therefore I'm not pro-helmet or anti-helmet, but I am anti-compulsion.
Make your own mind up.

If it was compulsory, that would be the end of my cycling.

Brucey wrote:I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion; make your own mind up.

I've seen and experienced (*) enough to be reasonably confident that you are better off with one than without one, and the downsides of wearing one seem not to be significant.

(*) put very simply I probably wouldn't be writing this without one.

cheers

The science shows no population level gain from mass wearing, so it follows that if helmets save some lives they cost others.
I say that no benefit from wearing can be shown on the authority of the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, David Spiegelhalter.

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

If someone invented a small box of negligible weight that created a force field around the bike that afforded total protection and cost £20, it should still not be compulsory to have one, in the same way its not compulsory to wear warm clothes outside in -20 degree temperatures.

The exception to the rules is only if a greater benefit is given to the populous, such as seat belt wearing saves thousands of pounds of tax in health care, which helmet wearing wouldn't because most people wear them of their own free will.

jb wrote:If someone invented a small box of negligible weight that created a force field around the bike that afforded total protection and cost £20, it should still not be compulsory to have one, in the same way its not compulsory to wear warm clothes outside in -20 degree temperatures.

The exception to the rules is only if a greater benefit is given to the populous, such as seat belt wearing saves thousands of pounds of tax in health care, which helmet wearing wouldn't because most people wear them of their own free will.

If I understand you rightly, your exception would apply to compelling exercise or a healthy diet.
It might also apply to compelling surgery in particular cases.

All of which debate poor OP, who disappeared very quickly I note, could find in spades on here

Bonefishblues wrote:All of which debate poor OP, who disappeared very quickly I note, could find in spades on here

They did, eventually, get some good advice. They also learned something new, I hope, if only that there is disagreement on helmet efficacy. That is, if they carried on reading!

Mike Sales wrote:

jb wrote:If someone invented a small box of negligible weight that created a force field around the bike that afforded total protection and cost £20, it should still not be compulsory to have one, in the same way its not compulsory to wear warm clothes outside in -20 degree temperatures.

The exception to the rules is only if a greater benefit is given to the populous, such as seat belt wearing saves thousands of pounds of tax in health care, which helmet wearing wouldn't because most people wear them of their own free will.

If I understand you rightly, your exception would apply to compelling exercise or a healthy diet.
It might also apply to compelling surgery in particular cases.

Well, yes. but it has to be decided by parliament and the relevant qualified bodies who also have to consider the practicality of implementing it.

jb wrote:Well, yes. but it has to be decided by parliament and the relevant qualified bodies who also have to consider the practicality of implementing it.

Of course laws do require enacting in parliament. The approval of qualified bodies is not necessary, though one would hope that they would be consulted.
Politicians do not always act rationally to say the least.

Cyril Haearn wrote:Cugel, please to comment on the Welsh attitude to safety with woodworking tools in relation to the attitude to Hellmuths for cycling
Danke

Alas, I know no Welsh woodworkers yet.

I can say that the non-professional users of chainsaws I've seen seem blissfully unaware of the risks, going by their lack of eye, ear, leg and body protection. But that's the same as anywhere else.

Cugel

When I were a little lad in Tyneside, 219 years ago, most blokes worked in heavy industries of one sort or another. A lot had bits missing - sometimes just an eye or a few fingers but there were also the one-armed and one-legged. I understand that there were many such I didn't see because they were mangled unto deeth!

As with the previously-mentioned gung-ho US woodworkers (not all are such but many, many are) there was a strange attitude that taking the risk of member-manglement was just part of "being a proper man". The fingerless would often wave the affected mit about proudly whilst scoffing at little lads like me who were ever so careful when riding about in their bogeys (4-wheeled wooden carts made from old crates and pram wheels).

Myself, I am a soft lad and go about ever so carefully. Strangely, this seems to have resulted in me being able to do some things that appear reet-risky to others, such as rapid downhill cycling. SInce I push the envelope only a teeny amount, the teeny amounts are not damaging and eventually add up to a competence. Festooning my table saw with guards, hold-downs and so forth also means I can make fine & accurate cuts of complexity as I learned what the limits are without having a catastrophic event of the "learnt the hard way" kind that gave me tabesawphobia.

If only them chainsaw users would put on the protective gear. It would save not just their hearing, a finger or three and the odd eye but also whole legs!

If only the same could be said for those polystyrene cycling hats.

Cugel

Recently read a copy of "Bluffers Guide to Cycling"- which has the merit of being quite humorous. On the subject of helmets, I liked the quote as follows:

"The 'split helmet saved my life' story is a fallacy; the split helmet failed, transferring all the shock to the head, so what saved you was your skull. Always, therefore, cycle with a skull."

My experience is that many people don't seem to recognise the difference between the design features of our skulls, and helmets. In particular, they never seem to appreciate that it's actually the soft foam pads in helmets that do the job of absorbing shock of impact. I am guessing that the foam costs a few quid to the manufacturer, if that. Bit different from the thousands of years of evolution that produced our craniums...

It's obviously hotter to wear but would there be any significant benefits from wearing a full face MTB helmet. A quick look at the standards and I haven't spotted any that seem much improved over road helmets ?

atoz wrote:…. In particular, they never seem to appreciate that it's actually the soft foam pads in helmets that do the job of absorbing shock of impact...

Nope. It is the main part of the shell which absorbs the impact (*). Typically this is made of expanded polystyrene; this compresses when impacted in such a way as it can prevent your skull from fracturing or not; it won't prevent all concussion or injury but it will nearly always very greatly lessen it.

When a helmet has seen a heavy impact of this type the shell is permanently deformed (crushed). Momentarily the shell has probably been compressed to about 3/4 of the remaining thickness and will have partially recovered to whatever thickness remains. The shell can also crack of course; although it provides some scuff resistance, the main function of the outer (micro) shell is to simply hold the main shell together even if it is cracked and broken.

(*) think about it; some brands of helmet adjust for size/fit by varying the thickness of the foam pads from ~10mm to about 2mm. If they 'absorbed impact' they wouldn't be made like this.... Motorcycle helmets work a similar way; a squashy liner (which can have tailored pads to get a good fit if necessary) and about 1" of expanded polystyrene to actually absorb the impact.

cheers