helmets from Why wear black?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9968
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby horizon » 14 Feb 2020, 11:46am

BlueRider wrote:
I also understand that lots of other human activities would warrant PPE, but i feel for my own use, riding in traffic, at speed sometimes in the dark, wet, wind and rain justifies some protection.
Riding a bike is not a good position for you should you fall or be hit. You are elevated off the floor, somewhat away from a natural balance and for the most part, your continued safety if paramount on having hold of the handlebars meaning your hands which protect you from falling normally, are of no use.


My personal view on this is that if you feel the need for a helmet then you shouldn't be riding a bicycle. As you say yourself, riding a bicycle is in fact a risky activity, and in that sense different from walking. So special care and attention (and brakes and unimpeded wheels etc etc) is required not to fall off (the same can be said for people walking the local coast path but no-one (and I mean no-one) wears a helmet for that round here). I don't think a helmet moves cycling from being risky (and 30 mph down a hill is risky IMV) to safe. So all the usual safety caveats apply: paying attention, not being drunk, moderating your speed if necessary, looking ahead etc.

(BTW, all these comments apply to the actual act of riding a bicycle on a traffic-free road.)
The experience of travel is something that you have to pay for but can never buy. Ho Ri Zon Chinese philosopher

BlueRider
Posts: 79
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 14 Feb 2020, 11:54am

The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote: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.

Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.

The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.

What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.

Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.

The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.

BlueRider
Posts: 79
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 14 Feb 2020, 11:58am

horizon wrote:My personal view on this is that if you feel the need for a helmet then you shouldn't be riding a bicycle.


I feel exactly the opposite, however, neither opinion is relevent when it comes to the usefulness (or not) of a helmet when in a cycling accident.

mattheus
Posts: 1386
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 14 Feb 2020, 12:17pm

BlueRider wrote:What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.

This is a ridiculous notion.
Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.



remind me what were you saying about the Strawman??

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 47736
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Mick F » 14 Feb 2020, 12:20pm

BlueRider wrote:
horizon wrote:My personal view on this is that if you feel the need for a helmet then you shouldn't be riding a bicycle.


I feel exactly the opposite, however, neither opinion is relevent when it comes to the usefulness (or not) of a helmet when in a cycling accident.
Neither opinion is relevant?

So you agree that your opinion isn't relevant.
Mick F. Cornwall

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Vorpal » 14 Feb 2020, 12:48pm

BlueRider wrote:
This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.
I don't understand what you mean by this. There is no scientifically discernible cause and effect between etiher hi viz or helmets and cyclists safety. There is some evidence that they negatively impact the behaviour of road users, but the relationship is not well understood. What is the cause & effect to which you refer? What is the baby that being thrown out with the bathwater?
BlueRider wrote:The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.
I'm not sure what you mean by discontent. There is some evidence that merely encouraging the use of helmets actually puts people off cycling. The theory is that is makes cycling seem more dangerous, but (again) the causes are not well understood. Those people who are put off cycling by the promotion of helmets have a *much* lower risk of dying if they cycle without helmets than if they do not get enough exercise.
BlueRider wrote:What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.
...
The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.

Correct stance? Why do you get to decide what is the correct stance?

If it was rambling, we wouldn't be talking about the need to understand the inherent dangers and risks. Cycling should be no different. It carries a similar level of risk. People hardly even consider it for *driving* which kills thousands every year in Great Britain.

Safety is everyone's responsibility. But I have yet to see evidence that either helmets or hi viz for cyclists offer significant benefits. Job sites and what have you are something else. For one thing, the use of PPE is evidence based. For another thing, employers have responsibility to prevent incidents and injuries. They have to have insurance in case things go wrong. Employers can require employees to use PPE, without shifting any of the responsibility for safety. Employers are still legally and civilly responsible. You will note that they do not and cannot require members of the public to use PPE until they enter the job site.

Wear hi viz and helmets, if you must, but please don't imply that *I* have a responsibility to do so.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2712
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby The utility cyclist » 14 Feb 2020, 1:03pm

reohn2 wrote:MickF
Is that graph's percentages of all people in the UK or people doing each activity?
If it's all people in the UK it's skewed

Is it, what % is it then?
The data directly from hospitals/medical centres tells us that 1.4million (up from 1.3million) people report a head injury every year, 160,000+ actually stay in hospitals as a consequence and seriousness of such, we also know that many head injuries, generally minor, go unreported.

How many of those reported head injuries and hospital stays due to a cycle related incident? 1% would be 14,000 of the reported cases, 'serious' head injuries if using the total number of circa 3100 SI (from STATS19) of cyclists and the guesswork of various orgs would put that number between 800-1200 per year.
So how many minor and serious head injuries are reported to medical professionals across the country, how many of those are the result of criminals and how many are self inflicted?

And shouldn't this be in the helmet section?

BlueRider
Posts: 79
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 14 Feb 2020, 1:05pm

Vorpal wrote:... Job sites and what have you are something else. For one thing, the use of PPE is evidence based. For another thing, employers have responsibility to prevent incidents and injuries. They have to have insurance in case things go wrong. Employers can require employees to use PPE, without shifting any of the responsibility for safety. Employers are still legally and civilly responsible. You will note that they do not and cannot require members of the public to use PPE until they enter the job site.

Wear hi viz and helmets, if you must, but please don't imply that *I* have a responsibility to do so.



...Which is a full justification of the points i make in this discussion.

I think the anti-ppe brigade are just acting anarchists who are crying foul not because the issues are reasonable, but because they are being told to do something in the 1st place.

Helmets don't help you in an accident?
Hi vis doesn't make you more noticable
It is preferable to not wear a helmet in an accident?
Black is more appropriate for cycling in the dark?
Participation rates for cycling is paramount and userps safety?
Safety gear should be banned?


Flat earth logic, all of it.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Vorpal » 14 Feb 2020, 1:21pm

BlueRider wrote:
Vorpal wrote:... Job sites and what have you are something else. For one thing, the use of PPE is evidence based. For another thing, employers have responsibility to prevent incidents and injuries. They have to have insurance in case things go wrong. Employers can require employees to use PPE, without shifting any of the responsibility for safety. Employers are still legally and civilly responsible. You will note that they do not and cannot require members of the public to use PPE until they enter the job site.

Wear hi viz and helmets, if you must, but please don't imply that *I* have a responsibility to do so.



...Which is a full justification of the points i make in this discussion.

I think the anti-ppe brigade are just acting anarchists who are crying foul not because the issues are reasonable, but because they are being told to do something in the 1st place.

Helmets don't help you in an accident?
Hi vis doesn't make you more noticable
It is preferable to not wear a helmet in an accident?
Black is more appropriate for cycling in the dark?
Participation rates for cycling is paramount and userps safety?
Safety gear should be banned?


Flat earth logic, all of it.

I think that you misunderstand the definition of safety, or at least risk.

A helmet may slightly reduce someone's risk of head injury given that there has been a crash of some sort, but that doesn't necessarily mean an overall reduction of risk.
There is some evidence that cyclists who wear helmets have more crashes.
There is no evidence that any general population of cyclists has a better outcome with hi viz &/or helmets than without (this means that with regard to cycling, at least, they are not 'PPE')
There is very good evidence that people who cycle have better outcomes than those who do not, independent of whether they use hi viz &/or helmets.

This suggests that cycling participation is far more important than the use of helmets and hi viz.
In addition, since there is some evidence that even promoting helmets puts people off cycling, we should not even promote them.

While I think it is going too far to ban them, I completely understand the perspective.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Vorpal » 14 Feb 2020, 1:21pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
And shouldn't this be in the helmet section?

Isn't it?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

mattheus
Posts: 1386
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 14 Feb 2020, 1:22pm

BlueRider wrote:Helmets don't help you in an accident?
Hi vis doesn't make you more noticable
It is preferable to not wear a helmet in an accident?
Black is more appropriate for cycling in the dark?
Participation rates for cycling is paramount and userps safety?
Safety gear should be banned?


Flat earth logic, all of it.



Bravo! Several of the above are actual, genuine Strawman arguments; I think you've got it!

BlueRider
Posts: 79
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 14 Feb 2020, 1:32pm

mattheus wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Helmets don't help you in an accident?
Hi vis doesn't make you more noticable
It is preferable to not wear a helmet in an accident?
Black is more appropriate for cycling in the dark?
Participation rates for cycling is paramount and userps safety?
Safety gear should be banned?


Flat earth logic, all of it.



Bravo! Several of the above are actual, genuine Strawman arguments; I think you've got it!


I can cut and paste with the best of 'em!

fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby fullupandslowingdown » 14 Feb 2020, 3:15pm

I'VE GOT IT!!!!!!!

what? wuhan flu?

We're all being misled by the greys They want us to fight amongst ourselves over such things as helmet and hi vis wearing because it deflects attention from

Smudgerii
Posts: 64
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 14 Feb 2020, 4:03pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote: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.

Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


“Ban helmets and hi-vis”, just for clarification, do you want them banned? Are you also saying remove freedom of choice from the general population?

If so on what justification?

Smudgerii
Posts: 64
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 14 Feb 2020, 4:11pm

BlueRider wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote: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.

Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.

The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.

What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.

Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.

The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.


And where do you stand on freedom of choice?

Safety is everyones responsibility, but in this instance only the rider should decide on the level of protection they provide to themselves.

I will give up on cycling and motorcycling should hi-vis ever be made compulsory, at no point will hi-vis improve a drivers ability/concern. Put the emphasis on improving driving standards, not on victim blaming.