What is it about cycle helmets?

[horizon]

I don't claim to have a perfectly formed view on the subject of cycle helmets but I do know that many other people do, whether or not (and perhaps especially when they are not) cyclists themselves. What interests me is not so much the efficacy of helmets per se but why they are now such an important social icon. The greeting "Do you wear a helmet?" now seems as common as "Would you like a cup of tea?" or "Not very nice weather today". What is it that fascinates people about cycle helmets? it isn't as if they are generally bothered about your safety and well being, just this particular fetish*.

* Definition of fetish: "an inanimate object worshipped for its supposed magical powers"

[Mark1978]

Agreed. I terms of the aspects affecting cycling safety I think there are a great number of things requiring more urgent attention. But whenever cycling safety comes up it always gets dragged into helmets; the damaging part is this is often to the exclusion of everything else.

I suppose it's an easy thing to focus on. If everyone wears a helmet it's all fine. Of course it's not.

BTW I always wear a helmet.

[Stradageek]

I think that endless propaganda has almost raised 'cycle helmet wearing' to the level of 'giving up smoking' as a perceived necessity for a healthy life.

And I firmly agree with Mark1978 that the impetus behind the propaganda is that it is an easy way to convince people you are doing something about cycle safety - when you are not

I prefer the wind in (what's left of) my hair

[Vorpal]

In the UK, I sometimes had people asking me why I cycled. When I was pregnant, a couple of people commented to me that I shouldn't do that in my condition And I had total strangers reprimand me for taking my children on the road. Nobody ever said anything about helmets, though maybe it was assumed that if I was mad enough to ride my bike on British roads, I would, of course, do so in a helmet.

In Norway, quite a few people say things like, "Oh, I know I should do that sometimes, but I don't like getting up so early in the morning." I have, however had helmet discussions twice at lunch time. Once, started by a colleague who'd had a brain injury as child, coming off his bicycle. The other was a general cycling conversation that just sort of wandered gradually into why / why not wear a helmet. My colleagues generally seemed interested in the fact that not all scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of helmets. They even seemed impressed that some of the research had been done by Norwegians

[meic]

Some people feel obliged to try and save me, often because they have had their lives saved by their helmets.

I used to have a similar zealotry about wearing gloves, they have saved my hands quite a few times when I was a motorcyclist.
I manage to control my urge to comment on people's lack of gloves unless I feel they are inexperienced and I can patronise them as I know better.

Of course after mentioning it a few times it isnt worth going over again, if enough cyclists didnt wear helmets (like in the Nederlands) then helmetless would be a normal state (as it is for walking) and very rarely raised as a talking point.

[Mick F]

BTW I always wear a helmet.

I'm not wearing mine at the moment.

[Si]

I used to have a similar zealotry about wearing gloves, they have saved my hands quite a few times when I was a motorcyclist.
I manage to control my urge to comment on people's lack of gloves unless I feel they are inexperienced and I can patronise them as I know better.

I tend to be a glove zealot sometimes with new riders or 'hard' riders. But I think that the difference is that I tell people that wearing cloves may save them from cuts and grazes on the their hands rather than saving their life. If someone were to suggest to me that a helmet might save me from cuts and grazes on my head then I would not contradict them....although I might point out that falling onto your hands is more likely than onto your head and a graze on the hand is more likely to stop me riding than a similar graze on the head.

[Cunobelin]

BTW I always wear a helmet.

I'm not wearing mine at the moment.

You do like to live dangerously!

[Cunobelin]

Unfortunately there is a massive lobby who would rather shift the responsibility for their actions and the consequent injury to the victim.

This includes the insurance companies and many motoring organisations.

The pernicious propaganda seeks to remove the responsibility of the driver to avoid causing the injury caused (for instance - by overtaking at a corner), but for the cyclist to wear a helmet and minimise the injury that is caused


Whether a helmet was worn or not, the accident is unequivocally in this case the fault of the driver, but the press, insurance and driver will seek to avoid this by claimingthe cyclist contributed to and is somehow responsible for the injury by not wearing a helmet.

[snibgo]

For many years now, safety has focused not on accident prevention, but accident mitigation. The assumption is now that accidents will happen. Cars will bump into things. There is nothing we can do to prevent that. Instead, we design car interiors so occupants aren't impaled on sharp surfaces, and exteriors so that squidgy people are less likely to be injured, and so on.

And motorists are more important than other road users. As we accept that motor vehicle will collide with other users, the other users shouldn't be there in the first place. If they are there, they should wear accident mitigation clothing.

[I need hardly add that I disagree with this accepted wisdom.]

[kwackers]

And motorists are more important than other road users. As we accept that motor vehicle will collide with other users, the other users shouldn't be there in the first place. If they are there, they should wear accident mitigation clothing.

I would suggest that the first level of protection should be to lawfully enforce pedestrian safety specs of cars. Those same people who advocate helmets are still going out there and buying cars with a one star ncap rating... That can't be right can it?

[Mick F]

The assumption is now that accidents will happen. Cars will bump into things. There is nothing we can do to prevent that.

I agree.

Accidents are just that. Accidents.

1 an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
2 an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

[Cunobelin]

The assumption is now that accidents will happen. Cars will bump into things. There is nothing we can do to prevent that.

I agree.

Accidents are just that. Accidents.

1 an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
2 an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

The reason that many Police now refer to RTI ("incidents") or RTC ("Collision") as opposed RTA ("Accidents") is the long overdue realisation that in many cases the latter sentence is inapplicable and that either through carelessness, deliberate act, commission or omission there is unequivocally apparent and deliberate cause.

[TonyR]

I would suggest that the first level of protection should be to lawfully enforce pedestrian safety specs of cars. Those same people who advocate helmets are still going out there and buying cars with a one star ncap rating... That can't be right can it?

It can't be right either that NCAP does not cater for the safety of cyclists, only pedestrians and occupants.

[TonyR]

The pernicious propaganda seeks to remove the responsibility of the driver to avoid causing the injury caused (for instance - by overtaking at a corner), but for the cyclist to wear a helmet and minimise the injury that is caused

Well why not when the cyclist can simply don a polystyrene HGV deflector to save their life.