It's official, every helmetted cyclist is blind to facts

[mjr]

I oppose helmet promotion partly because misfits are considered correct by so many people, that even if helmets became compulsary, I suspect the non-reduction in head injuries would be dismissed by blaming wearer error, with a further consequential reduction in cyclist numbers as some remaining riders give up because it's all too fiddly or uncomfortable.

There was a bike race last week, The Women's Tour, with highlights on itv4 sponsored by Friends Life. The sponsor's break bumper showed a young woman in a grey top putting a helmet on, clipping the chin strap and riding off with the chin clip dangling around about an inch below the chin. It looked so loose as to border on making the helmet a strangulation hazard. I threw my socks at the telly once I noticed.

[easyroller]

When I was growing up and COMPULSORY HELMET LAWS were introduced, this was the TV catchphrase:

(crank that volume)

[youtube]gACSP114SHs[/youtube]



I have nothing to add to this discussion, just thought I'd share...

[Tonyf33]

But that is not what most people think. They think a helmet will save their life. But if it were a new drug and you told them as far as we can tell this drug has no effect on your condition but there is a possibility that it could either make you better or it could equally kill you but we don't know how many people do you think would take that drug?

Indeed, and to be perfectly honest I did buy a helmet for my son when he first started cycling on the roads (about 13 years ago), I never told him he should wear it, I think he did a few times then never bothered because no other kids did and probably because dad didn't either.
looking back, if I knew then what I have garnered over the last 3-4 years I'd probably not even bothered wasting money buying one, I've ridden pretty fast, some may even say dangerously (by comparison to pootling at 10mph on a bike path)
I've even done a little mountain biking but I've not once felt the need to wear a helmet, if I'm riding much beyond what I can mentally analyse/assess with regard to hazards and my avoiding them far too frequently then that is something one needs to address, fear factor usually tells you when you're over the line too much but deffo an incident that affects you mentally and/or physically knocks you to re-think what you should/shouldn't be doing with regard to risk & how you analyse situations and your skill level (this is the same for many pursuits including driving).

I'm pretty sure that statistically helmetted riders have more incidents than non helmetted across all groups, certainly at the upper level, risk analysis and how we compensate (or don't) is a known mental aspect when applying or adding 'safety aids' in the work place of all industries, home & in sport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

The seemingly 'religious' way that some take safety equipment as their absolute safeguard (& even those that wear a helmet just for commuting) when actually it can never substitute a true understanding of the risk factors and how to avoid them, knowing your own capabilities and not getting complacent and re-training your self all the time. Complacency & lack of thought because of safety aids are a massive pitfall that I've experienced & had to deal with in the workplace (I used to be a risk assessment auditor/trainer), in a home environ and seen directly in sport too.

If we ever had a compulsary helmet law, I wouldn't give up cycling, I'd rather die, however I would openly break what in my opinion would be one of the stupidest laws in the history of this nation, I beleive it would also break English common law & transgress against my human rights.

[pjclinch]

But that is not what most people think. They think a helmet will save their life. But if it were a new drug and you told them as far as we can tell this drug has no effect on your condition but there is a possibility that it could either make you better or it could equally kill you but we don't know how many people do you think would take that drug?

I think that's when you'd get an excellent illustration of man being a rationalising animal, rather than a rational one!

I've even done a little mountain biking but I've not once felt the need to wear a helmet, if I'm riding much beyond what I can mentally analyse/assess with regard to hazards and my avoiding them far too frequently then that is something one needs to address, fear factor usually tells you when you're over the line too much but deffo an incident that affects you mentally and/or physically knocks you to re-think what you should/shouldn't be doing with regard to risk & how you analyse situations and your skill level (this is the same for many pursuits including driving).

FSVO "mountain biking", of course. If I'm doing cross-country on estate tracks to get to a good start point for a Munro-bag I won't bother. It's A-B transport but over rougher stuff than the roads. OTOH if I'm on a graded technical trail I'll probably be pushing myself and in much greater danger of over-cooking it. These things tend to be in woods and forests so if you over-cook it you've a good chance of meeting some degree of tree and/or rock and since comfort is a non-issue for this sort of silliness I'll probably be wearing mine for that.

I'm pretty sure that statistically helmetted riders have more incidents than non helmetted across all groups, certainly at the upper level, risk analysis and how we compensate (or don't) is a known mental aspect when applying or adding 'safety aids' in the work place of all industries, home & in sport.

The Dutch statistic that 13% (?) of hospitalised riders are helmet wearers against less than 1% in the general population. Go over and it's a very clear split between helmets on sporting riders and bare heads on utility riders. You get more crashes in a fast chain gang because... it's a fast chain gang. The same riders will shed their lids with their club jerseys and padded shorts when they trundle along to the station for their commute. Though in the chain gang they're wearing helmets because they're in the chain gang, not because they're riding bikes.

The seemingly 'religious' way that some take safety equipment as their absolute safeguard (& even those that wear a helmet just for commuting) when actually it can never substitute a true understanding of the risk factors and how to avoid them, knowing your own capabilities and not getting complacent and re-training your self all the time. Complacency & lack of thought because of safety aids are a massive pitfall that I've experienced & had to deal with in the workplace (I used to be a risk assessment auditor/trainer), in a home environ and seen directly in sport too.

Yup.

Pete.

[mjr]

But that is not what most people think. They think a helmet will save their life. But if it were a new drug and you told them as far as we can tell this drug has no effect on your condition but there is a possibility that it could either make you better or it could equally kill you but we don't know how many people do you think would take that drug?

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin#History and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis

The decision should probably be down to your assessment of the relative personal probabilities of improvement, no effect and deterioration, but as that whole ongoing flamewar shows - plus on other related topics such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality ... _life_year - people are rather poor at assessing those.