The 2x2 Test

[irc]

[That's nice to hear. However, I fear I may not be average. I reckon I'm averaging an uncontrolled dismount every couple of thousand miles. I'm hoping there's at least 50,000 miles left in me. So if I don't get any less clumsy, that's around 25 more accidents. I'd be surprised if none of those put my noggin at risk, but very glad if I'm wrong.

Ask Michael Schumacher how much help his helmet was.

If you are crashing every couple of thousand miles you are risking serious injury whether you wear a helmet or not. Don't forget not only head injuries can be life changing. Do a search for hip fractures on this forum for example.

Many accidents are avoidable. Over 35 years of cycling I've never had an injury accident. Granted I don't do the miles some on here do but that includes a decade or two of cycle commuting 4 days or so a week and 15'000 or so miles of touring in the last 5 years.

Thinking regular crashes are inevitable but acceptable if wearing a helmet sounds very like "risk compensation" to me. Risk compensation being the ginger stepchild that helmet campaigners are silent about. I suspect risk compensation may account for the fact that although I think helmets give some very limited protection from head injuries it doesn't show up in population stats. Any protection is outweighed at a population level by helmet wearers having more crashes.

Not that I'm arguing you shouldn't wear a helmet but for it to have max value it should be a last resort. The protection you think you might never actually need. Not something worn because you know you will crash.

[rfryer]

Thinking regular crashes are inevitable but acceptable if wearing a helmet sounds very like "risk compensation" to me.

It might sound like it, but it's really not. I was accepting that level of risk before I decided I'd rather wear a helmet than not. The helmet doesn't change my behaviour at all.

The interesting question is why, if I'm sufficiently interested in safety that I choose to wear a helmet (however misguidedly), I don't try to manage my risk better when on the bike? Well I do, in lots of small ways. However, In general I prioritise enjoyment of cycling over safety. Wearing a helmet doesn't compromise that enjoyment, but going more slowly, or going by car instead, would.

[Ron]

this is I'm sure a really stupid question...
but what's a "length of 2 x 2"?!

Think of a baseball bat, but of square and not round cross section. Each side ot the square measuring two inches or approx five centimetres.

[Ron]

this is I'm sure a really stupid question...
but what's a "length of 2 x 2"?!

Think of a baseball bat, but of square and not round cross section. Each side of the square measuring two inches or approx five centimetres.

Helmet wearing cyclists in the UK are constantly being threatened by people at the roadside swinging these things above their heads, which is as good a reason as any for not wearing a helmet .

[irc]

However, In general I prioritise enjoyment of cycling over safety. Wearing a helmet doesn't compromise that enjoyment, but going more slowly, or going by car instead, would.

Safety isn't always about slowing down though. That said everyone has a different riding environment so only you know what might or might not have prevented your crashes.

[mjr]

If anyone is interested (or cannot sleep tonight) then this link I think is quite illuminating:

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/spe ... 30#reviews

Any particular part? Looked like the usual bunch of misunderstandings that a cracked helmet worked with other unverifiable anecdotes trying to justify a past purchasing decision

[MartinC]

How big is your head?
I have a small head - 53cm circumference. If circular, it is 16.8cm diameter.
My (small) helmet - just measured it - is 73cm circumference. If circular, it is 23.2cm diameter.
That makes my helmet only "sticking out" to the side by 3.2cm - just over an inch.

Not much, and not enough the make much difference.

Mick I know that you're numerate. So you that know your effective head diameter is 28% larger which is "not enough to make much difference" Pull the other one it's got bells on.

I also know that you can work out the increment in torque that the 28% will allow a glancing blow to apply to your head.

[horizon]

If anyone is interested (or cannot sleep tonight) then this link I think is quite illuminating:

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/spe ... 30#reviews

Any particular part?

No. It was the sheer volume (I think over 250 replies) giving an insight into the thinking of people buying helmets. If anyone on here thinks that helmets are the choice of the few, think again: that link gives you a window into the thinking of most people and why helmets will soon be, if they are not already, embedded into the social mindset.

[mjr]

If anyone is interested (or cannot sleep tonight) then this link I think is quite illuminating:

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/spe ... 30#reviews

Any particular part?

No. It was the sheer volume (I think over 250 replies) giving an insight into the thinking of people buying helmets. If anyone on here thinks that helmets are the choice of the few, think again: that link gives you a window into the thinking of most people and why helmets will soon be, if they are not already, embedded into the social mindset.

Alternatively, ride around and pay attention to how few people actually wear helmets. Maybe come look at Cambridge or King's Lynn - I feel that Cambridge's two councils actually claim to be supporting cycling (with occasional bloopers, but it's still 50% riding at least monthly - 18% commuter share), whereas cycling continues in West Norfolk (20% monthly across the mostly-rural borough - 10% share of KL commuters) largely despite its county council (who lurve pushing helmets AFAICT - you're more likely to see a dinosaur than an unhelmetted cyclist in its publications) and the highways agency. The borough council is OK most of the time, but it's not their role. In short, KL's not some cycletopia and yet still less than a third of riders wear them... I feel that keener riders are more likely to wear them, as are people on longer rides, which causes problems for organised photographs, but even so, I was happy that a recent bike day trip actually had fewer than half wearing helmets again

[Mick F]

Mick I know that you're numerate. So you that know your effective head diameter is 28% larger which is "not enough to make much difference" Pull the other one it's got bells on.

I also know that you can work out the increment in torque that the 28% will allow a glancing blow to apply to your head.

Yes, I'm numerate ok.

28% increase in something is just that - 28% increase.
28% of something small, isn't much extra. In this case, just over an inch all round.

My point all along ............. and I mentioned this in the other thread, is that a helmet is just a protective item. If I scoot along on my side and my head contacts the road, I'd rather have the helmet on.

Same as working in the garden or doing DIY.
I wear gloves.
Gloves won't stop me cutting my fingers off with the circular saw or crushing my pinkie under a large piece of granite, but they may well snag and drag my hands into harm's way. Meanwhile, they'll stop my lilly whites getting dirty, they'll stop splinters or thorns, or cuts and scratches from stones or bricks ........... and they'll keep my hands warm.

I chose to wear gloves when I'm working, perhaps the helmet detractors wouldn't.

[kwackers]

I chose to wear gloves when I'm working, perhaps the helmet detractors wouldn't.

I remember a friend of mine watching me doing some machining on my lathe and asking why I didn't wear gloves! He was under the hugely mistaken idea that snagging a glove was preferable to snagging my skin...

[horizon]

My point all along ............. and I mentioned this in the other thread, is that a helmet is just a protective item. If I scoot along on my side and my head contacts the road, I'd rather have the helmet on.

You're wearing the wrong sort of helmet! All helmets are made to the extreme event standard and don't work particularly well in lighter impacts (assuming they work at all). It's somehere in this link:

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html

But, more to the point, I wouldn't say it too loudly. Helmets are promoted (and supported by caring family members)on the basis that they protect against major injury and lifelong disablement, not cuts and bruises. That puts you firmly in the "anti-helmet" camp (If there is such a thing).

[[XAP]Bob]

Started reading that link - gave up when it was quoting (without irony) the 88% stats...

[Mick F]

I chose to wear gloves when I'm working, perhaps the helmet detractors wouldn't.

I remember a friend of mine watching me doing some machining on my lathe and asking why I didn't wear gloves! He was under the hugely mistaken idea that snagging a glove was preferable to snagging my skin...

Lathe work is very different. I've used lathes many times in the past, and gloves are NOT recommended, also loose clothing and wearing a tie!

I was referring to manual work lifting and shifting etc.

My point all along ............. and I mentioned this in the other thread, is that a helmet is just a protective item. If I scoot along on my side and my head contacts the road, I'd rather have the helmet on.

You're wearing the wrong sort of helmet! All helmets are made to the extreme event standard and don't work particularly well in lighter impacts (assuming they work at all). ............ But, more to the point, I wouldn't say it too loudly. Helmets are promoted (and supported by caring family members)on the basis that they protect against major injury and lifelong disablement, not cuts and bruises. That puts you firmly in the "anti-helmet" camp (If there is such a thing).

Yes.
Happy with that!
I wasn't suggesting an "impact", I was comparing why I wear one to why I wear work gloves. Gloves don't stop an impact, as my right pinkie will testify.

Here's an idea ...........
Why do we wear protective clothing at all?
Why not work naked?
Why not use a chainsaw or any sharp and dangerous equipment whilst naked?
Why not cycle naked too?

By being nude like that, you will be VERY VERY careful.

[horizon]

Started reading that link - gave up when it was quoting (without irony) the 88% stats...

It's a very mixed article but I think he questions the 88%:

Now hold on. If bike helmets reduced the risk of brain injury by 88 percent in 1989, what's the problem, right? Well, they didn't—at least not in the way that sentence indicates. The study's authors conducted more rigorous follow-up research seven years later. They looked at patients who arrived at ERs in seven Seattle-area hospitals after bicycle-related­ accidents. In that second study, 63 percent of all head-injured cyclists over the age of 39 wore helmets at the time of the crash. More than half of all brain-injured riders (a subset of head-injured riders; think of them as concussed but without a skull fracture) over age 19 wore helmets. And 42 percent of severely brain-injured riders over age 19 wore ­helmets. So it may be true that helmets reduced brain trauma in nearly 90 percent of riders, as that first study contended. But most people read that sentence to mean that helmets eliminated it.

That might still be contentious but even he challenges current notions about helmet effectiveness.