helmets from Why wear black?

[The utility cyclist]

What a happy contrast these photos make with the road warriors on London streets.

I don't appreciate that, they are people who simply want to get from A-B as efficiently as they see fit, and factually are still safer than pedestrians.

Much of the apparent 'road warrior' attitude as you put it, stems from the environment itself, the fact there's not enough space in the first instance to cycle in a more relaxed manner, and that is because the majority of the landscape is given over to motorists. Even in the latest development outside of Utrecht where they have zero parking spaces for individual motors they still have wider roads than they do the segregated cycle lanes, frankly I find that utterly perverse.

[Mike Sales]

What a happy contrast these photos make with the road warriors on London streets.

I don't appreciate that, they are people who simply want to get from A-B as efficiently as they see fit, and factually are still safer than pedestrians.

Much of the apparent 'road warrior' attitude as you put it, stems from the environment itself, the fact there's not enough space in the first instance to cycle in a more relaxed manner, and that is because the majority of the landscape is given over to motorists. Even in the latest development outside of Utrecht where they have zero parking spaces for individual motors they still have wider roads than they do the segregated cycle lanes, frankly I find that utterly perverse.

Don't you think that it is good to see helmetless women and children getting from A to B in their ordinary clothes, instead of the hivizzed and helmeyed young men who make up the majority of London cyclists?

[The utility cyclist]

What a happy contrast these photos make with the road warriors on London streets.

I don't appreciate that, they are people who simply want to get from A-B as efficiently as they see fit, and factually are still safer than pedestrians.

Much of the apparent 'road warrior' attitude as you put it, stems from the environment itself, the fact there's not enough space in the first instance to cycle in a more relaxed manner, and that is because the majority of the landscape is given over to motorists. Even in the latest development outside of Utrecht where they have zero parking spaces for individual motors they still have wider roads than they do the segregated cycle lanes, frankly I find that utterly perverse.

Don't you think that it is good to see helmetless women and children getting from A to B in their ordinary clothes, instead of the hivizzed and helmeyed young men who make up the majority of London cyclists?

Yes of course but your 'Road Warriors' tag is unnecessary and a failure on your part to understand why people have their behaviour changed by the environment and still even then it doesn't warrant your descriptive.
They are road cyclists, helmet wearers or not, they are not 'warriors' in the way you are clearly labelling them!

[Mike Sales]

Yes of course but your 'Road Warriors' tag is unnecessary and a failure on your part to understand why people have their behaviour changed by the environment and still even then it doesn't warrant your descriptive.
They are road cyclists, helmet wearers or not, they are not 'warriors' in the way you are clearly labelling them!

You mistake my thinking.
I do understand why London cyclists tend to be of a certain type, so I am happy to see a photo of cyclists whose social makeup, behaviour and dress are not being moulded by a hostile environment.
Presumably you see "road warrior" as a pejorative label but I was merely trying to characterise them in a shorthand way.

[Smudgerii]

As with "why wear black", the answer is simple.

Because we have freedom of choice on if/when we wear helmet. Long may it remain a choice, it is a personal assessment of the risks.

Parents decide what is best for their child, it is not for others to interfere.

[mjr]

3. Jo wears a helmet when he goes cycling. He has reduced (he believes) his risk by 1%.

4. Jo could wear a helmet when he goes drinking. That would reduce his risk by an ADDITIONAL 1%. But he decides not to, because his friends would laugh and stop inviting him to the pub.[...]

Problem solved! For the good of the country, we must all laugh at helmet users and not invite them to the pub.

Thank you for solving this difficult problem.

[mjr]

I asked this before but got no answer, I take it in a cycling accident involving head injury, you would rather not be wearing a helmet?

Yes, even then I'd rather not be wearing a helmet because it would mean that I had needlessly increased my risk of being in a cycling accident and if it's a head injury that matters (rather than the sort of scrape my woolly hat will also protect against), it was probably due to colliding with another vehicle, which cycle helmets are neither designed for nor tested against, so wearing one probably has not helped.

I feel confident that the risk increases somehow because of the non-correlation between casualty rates and usage rates, and personally, I crashed far more often in my 15 years of helmetted cycling (roughly 1996 to 2011 I think) than the years either side of it. I'm supposed to know about risk compensation (trained as a statistician) so either it still affects me despite that knowledge (so there's little hope for anyone) or there's something else odd about those hats!

Now, how about you answer some of the questions asked of you, such as:
1. If you crash and are going to hit the ground with the first/hardest impact on part of your body almost at random, would you personally rather make your head a bigger/heavier target or not?
2. Do you wear your helmet in your car, when jogging or walking? Stairs and baths are known to cause head injuries too. Do you wear a helmet indoors?
3. Do you think that cycle helmets have convinced non-cyclists that they can make cycling in Britain safe? (you literally deflected from this one by objecting to the wording...)
4. Do/would you wear a helmet in the pub? When walking home from the pub?

[BlueRider]

I asked this before but got no answer, I take it in a cycling accident involving head injury, you would rather not be wearing a helmet?

Yes, even then I'd rather not be wearing a helmet because it would mean that I had needlessly increased my risk of being in a cycling accident and if it's a head injury that matters (rather than the sort of scrape my woolly hat will also protect against), it was probably due to colliding with another vehicle, which cycle helmets are neither designed for nor tested against, so wearing one probably has not helped.

Well i am on a different page to you then. In any cycling accident, i want to be wearing my helmet.

I feel confident that the risk increases somehow because of the non-correlation between casualty rates and usage rates, and personally, I crashed far more often in my 15 years of helmetted cycling (roughly 1996 to 2011 I think) than the years either side of it. I'm supposed to know about risk compensation (trained as a statistician) so either it still affects me despite that knowledge (so there's little hope for anyone) or there's something else odd about those hats!

This is an admission that you yourself are more reckless wearing a hat than not and has nothing to do with any value of a helmet in a crash.[/quote]

Now, how about you answer some of the questions asked of you, such as:
1. If you crash and are going to hit the ground with the first/hardest impact on part of your body almost at random, would you personally rather make your head a bigger/heavier target or not?

Size and weight additions of helmets are negligable, one could argue that the increase in head circumference is advantageous for ones neck if hitting the ground parrallel .

2. Do you wear your helmet in your car, when jogging or walking? Stairs and baths are known to cause head injuries too. Do you wear a helmet indoors?

Strawman argument

3. Do you think that cycle helmets have convinced non-cyclists that they can make cycling in Britain safe? (you literally deflected from this one by objecting to the wording...)

Thank you for removing the juvinile prefix. Helmets have nothing to do with making the act of cycling safe.

4. Do/would you wear a helmet in the pub? When walking home from the pub?

Strawman argument

[mattheus]

2. Do you wear your helmet in your car, when jogging or walking? Stairs and baths are known to cause head injuries too. Do you wear a helmet indoors?

Strawman argument

ANSWER THE QUESTION

[mjr]

I asked this before but got no answer, I take it in a cycling accident involving head injury, you would rather not be wearing a helmet?

Yes, even then I'd rather not be wearing a helmet because it would mean that I had needlessly increased my risk of being in a cycling accident and if it's a head injury that matters (rather than the sort of scrape my woolly hat will also protect against), it was probably due to colliding with another vehicle, which cycle helmets are neither designed for nor tested against, so wearing one probably has not helped.

Well i am on a different page to you then. In any cycling accident, i want to be wearing my helmet.

I think we already knew we're currently on different pages. I also suspect you've overstated that you want to be wearing your helmet in *any* cycling accident. You really shouldn't want to be wearing it if you're going to end up hanging by it, as currently being discussed in another topic viewtopic.php?f=41&t=135031

I feel confident that the risk increases somehow because of the non-correlation between casualty rates and usage rates, and personally, I crashed far more often in my 15 years of helmetted cycling (roughly 1996 to 2011 I think) than the years either side of it. I'm supposed to know about risk compensation (trained as a statistician) so either it still affects me despite that knowledge (so there's little hope for anyone) or there's something else odd about those hats!

This is an admission that you yourself are more reckless wearing a hat than not and has nothing to do with any value of a helmet in a crash.

No, please read what I wrote. I may be more reckless (but I would have sworn I wasn't, with one exception I've mentioned in the past) but it could equally be that other people are more reckless around me (like drivers thinking "he's OK - he's got a helmet on - he won't wobble much, so I can pass close") or that the ways all helmets restricted my hearing and vision resulted in worse decision-making.

Also, the value of a helmet in a crash itself becomes irrelevant if it's in the region of 1% if using a helmet makes you crash 25% or more more often. We care more about real injury severity than theoretical protection.

2. Do you wear your helmet in your car, when jogging or walking? Stairs and baths are known to cause head injuries too. Do you wear a helmet indoors?

Strawman argument

[...]

4. Do/would you wear a helmet in the pub? When walking home from the pub?

Strawman argument

Those questions (which weren't mine) are much less strawman arguments than your one that I answered!

[BlueRider]

2. Do you wear your helmet in your car, when jogging or walking? Stairs and baths are known to cause head injuries too. Do you wear a helmet indoors?

Strawman argument

ANSWER THE QUESTION

[BlueRider]

Yes, even then I'd rather not be wearing a helmet because it would mean that I had needlessly increased my risk of being in a cycling accident and if it's a head injury that matters (rather than the sort of scrape my woolly hat will also protect against), it was probably due to colliding with another vehicle, which cycle helmets are neither designed for nor tested against, so wearing one probably has not helped.

Well i am on a different page to you then. In any cycling accident, i want to be wearing my helmet.

I think we already knew we're currently on different pages. I also suspect you've overstated that you want to be wearing your helmet in *any* cycling accident. You really shouldn't want to be wearing it if you're going to end up hanging by it, as currently being discussed in another topic viewtopic.php?f=41&t=135031

I feel confident that the risk increases somehow because of the non-correlation between casualty rates and usage rates, and personally, I crashed far more often in my 15 years of helmetted cycling (roughly 1996 to 2011 I think) than the years either side of it. I'm supposed to know about risk compensation (trained as a statistician) so either it still affects me despite that knowledge (so there's little hope for anyone) or there's something else odd about those hats!

This is an admission that you yourself are more reckless wearing a hat than not and has nothing to do with any value of a helmet in a crash.

No, please read what I wrote. I may be more reckless (but I would have sworn I wasn't, with one exception I've mentioned in the past) but it could equally be that other people are more reckless around me (like drivers thinking "he's OK - he's got a helmet on - he won't wobble much, so I can pass close") or that the ways all helmets restricted my hearing and vision resulted in worse decision-making.

Also, the value of a helmet in a crash itself becomes irrelevant if it's in the region of 1% if using a helmet makes you crash 25% or more more often. We care more about real injury severity than theoretical protection.

2. Do you wear your helmet in your car, when jogging or walking? Stairs and baths are known to cause head injuries too. Do you wear a helmet indoors?

Strawman argument

[...]

4. Do/would you wear a helmet in the pub? When walking home from the pub?

Strawman argument

Those questions (which weren't mine) are much less strawman arguments than your one that I answered!

The poor girl who died in the tree wasn't in a cycling accident thus its an irrelevence to the discussion of helmets in cycling.

[mattheus]

The poor girl who died in the tree wasn't in a cycling accident thus its an irrelevence to the discussion of helmets in cycling.

So you'd happily wear a carcinogenic helmet? (e.g. asbestos)

ANSWER THE QUESTION

[Cunobelin]

I asked this before but got no answer, I take it in a cycling accident involving head injury, you would rather not be wearing a helmet?

Again the question is too simple

I take it in a cycling / pedestrian /toddler/ walking /jogging / having a shower/tripping in a pub / elderly person stumbling on a kerb and a thousand other scenarios accident involving head injury, you would rather not be wearing a helmet?

[Cunobelin]

Well i am on a different page to you then. In any cycling accident, i want to be wearing my helmet.

I think we already knew we're currently on different pages. I also suspect you've overstated that you want to be wearing your helmet in *any* cycling accident. You really shouldn't want to be wearing it if you're going to end up hanging by it, as currently being discussed in another topic viewtopic.php?f=41&t=135031

This is an admission that you yourself are more reckless wearing a hat than not and has nothing to do with any value of a helmet in a crash.

No, please read what I wrote. I may be more reckless (but I would have sworn I wasn't, with one exception I've mentioned in the past) but it could equally be that other people are more reckless around me (like drivers thinking "he's OK - he's got a helmet on - he won't wobble much, so I can pass close") or that the ways all helmets restricted my hearing and vision resulted in worse decision-making.

Also, the value of a helmet in a crash itself becomes irrelevant if it's in the region of 1% if using a helmet makes you crash 25% or more more often. We care more about real injury severity than theoretical protection.

Strawman argument

[...] Strawman argument

Those questions (which weren't mine) are much less strawman arguments than your one that I answered!

The poor girl who died in the tree wasn't in a cycling accident thus its an irrelevence to the discussion of helmets in cycling.

Which is the absolute ignorance and hypocrisy

A person is infected by Coronavirus, but because they were not a cyclist it is irrelevant...