The helmets thing

[Cunobelin]

So why do you wear one ?

I have corrected the link for you


I do and I don't......

In the case of the photograph it was a cold day and had been ice in the morning

I also wear one in snow:







However on a day like today I wouldn't bother and haven't for the last couple of weeks.

I feel that on a recumbent trike in good weather that there is little to be offered


Equally I don't wear on on the Christiania

Reality is that I realise helmets have their limitations and I make an informed decision... it is not a secret and clear on this and other websites where I have offered advice on helmet choice, and have frequently linked to this and other photographs.

I will challenge any opposition to this right to choose, and also to challenge some of the ridiculous pro helmet claims

Not complex really.. whether I wear one or not is irrelevant to your informed choice as to what you do

[Cunobelin]

Interestingly some people find the stance of informed choice and applying something that is unacceptable....

On another website there was an interesting series of accusations..... and their vitriolic statements about personal choice and supporting informed choice speak volumes

In short your'e a wind up merchant.....you wear a lid, preach the complete opposite and play the devils advocate. You also do the same on CTC..

I've read his CTC posts for years, shame he hid his dirty little secret (the open fact that I occasionally wear a helmet)on there as well

Its a shame he never had the integrity and honesty to admit he was a helmet wearer before launching his mountain of evidence on unsuspecting users

[ossie]

Its shocking what you can read cross forum

Im truely amazed at your stance on here in light of these pictures that have surfaced , in particular your so called insistence on evidence in relation to pre and post compulsion cycling numbers that you posted earlier in the thread....a figure that ordinarily would be impossible to estimate in any country. If compulsion was introduced here (and im not in favour of it btw) there would be insufficient evidence to prove cycling numbers pre or post legislation and likewise insufficient evidence to prove head injuries in relation to cycling with or without a helmet or otherwise...there are simply not enough processes in place.

For you to glibly cling to some obscure facts and figures gathered in an wayward fashion to prove that helmets arent worth their salt whilst posting a picture of a pub..followed by you wearing helmets with your head a mere 24 inches from the ground just seems odd...

[bovlomov]

For you to glibly cling to some obscure facts and figures gathered in an wayward fashion to prove that helmets arent worth their salt whilst posting a picture of a pub..followed by you wearing helmets with your head a mere 24 inches from the ground just seems odd...

Is it so different from Tim Gill's postscript to his NCB report?... in which he writes:

This author’s personal view is that helmet wearing is a sensible measure for adults and children. I will continue to wear a helmet, and will continue to tell (and eventually, to ask) my daughter to do the same, partly to reduce the damage and distress caused by the comparatively minor mishaps that are most likely to befall cyclists, and partly (if I am honest) because of the power of the ‘what if…’ question, were anything more serious to befall her or me. But those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.

Life isn't black and white. There are plenty of helmet wearers posting on this forum who don't believe the helmet makes them safer. They aren't hypocrites or idiots, but they have their own reasons for wearing one. It's probably best to reserve your judgement until you know more about Cunobelin's thinking.

[Vorpal]

I'm honestly not much different. I mostly don't wear one these days, but I have one, and I occasionally wear it. I don't see much use in them in general, and I certainly don't see any use in advocating them.

However, I do think that it's really important that people make *informed* choices about helmets, and not just wear them because they are 'common sense'. For that reason, I generally argue from a helmet-skeptic persepctive. Frankly, I don't think it makes much difference whether I wear one or not.

[Cunobelin]

Its shocking what you can read cross forum

Im truely amazed at your stance on here in light of these pictures that have surfaced , in particular your so called insistence on evidence in relation to pre and post compulsion cycling numbers that you posted earlier in the thread....a figure that ordinarily would be impossible to estimate in any country. If compulsion was introduced here (and im not in favour of it btw) there would be insufficient evidence to prove cycling numbers pre or post legislation and likewise insufficient evidence to prove head injuries in relation to cycling with or without a helmet or otherwise...there are simply not enough processes in place.

For you to glibly cling to some obscure facts and figures gathered in an wayward fashion to prove that helmets arent worth their salt whilst posting a picture of a pub..followed by you wearing helmets with your head a mere 24 inches from the ground just seems odd...

You really need to read the posts to gain an understanding of what is actually happening....


The pictures haven't "surfaced" they have been here for a long time, some dating back to the late 1990s...almost as absurd as the claims made elsewhere.

Secondly the picture in the pub and reference is anecdotal...... that is where I suffer most head injuries, and like most anecdotal "evidence", irrelevant to the decision making process


They are not as you absurdly claim "obscure facts and figures gathered in an wayward fashion to prove that helmets arent worth their salt".

If you actually had any knowledge on this subject you would know that it is factual evidence from Australia and the US where helmets were made compulsory and it this evidence that can be extrapolated to the UK.

I know some people are unable to understand that pointing out that helmets have limitations, or that compulsion is detrimental to the number of people cycling, is informing choice but your claim is really rather absurd

Finally, could you please have the courtesy to read my previous reply...I make an informed choice according to conditions..... the magic clues were the words "ice" and the white stuff covering everything in the second picture.

[Mike Sales]

Its shocking what you can read cross forum

Im truely amazed at your stance on here in light of these pictures that have surfaced , in particular your so called insistence on evidence in relation to pre and post compulsion cycling numbers that you posted earlier in the thread....a figure that ordinarily would be impossible to estimate in any country. If compulsion was introduced here (and im not in favour of it btw) there would be insufficient evidence to prove cycling numbers pre or post legislation and likewise insufficient evidence to prove head injuries in relation to cycling with or without a helmet or otherwise...there are simply not enough processes in place.

For you to glibly cling to some obscure facts and figures gathered in an wayward fashion to prove that helmets arent worth their salt whilst posting a picture of a pub..followed by you wearing helmets with your head a mere 24 inches from the ground just seems odd...

If you want to get a better knowledge of the evidence on helmets you should have a look at

http://www.cyclehelmets.org

There is plenty of evidence there.

Here is some stuff on the effect of the helmet law in Australia. Numbers cycling went down, but the casualty rate did not.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html

Here is a journalistic take on the evidence in the USA. Its a bit easier reading.

A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Published: July 29, 2001



Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm's way.

But new data on bicycle accidents raises questions about that. The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html

[Cunobelin]

Ask her why she doesn't wear a full-face helmet - after all it must give much more protection and the XC ones don't block vision and have lots of vents to keep you cool.

Actually medical opinion in the form of the British Dental Association is in favour of full face helmets

Headway commonly quotes a paper form the BDA which points out that much of the face is unprotected and suggests that they should be promoting helmets with greater if not full face coverage to prevent the common facial injuries that occur with present helmet design

[Vmlopes]

All this to-ing and frowing the simple fact is, until someone can categorically prove that helmets have no benefit however minor...........then I am afraid the media and such will always point to the fact that they must help in an accident.........simplez

[Mike Sales]

All this to-ing and frowing the simple fact is, until someone can categorically prove that helmets have no benefit however minor...........then I am afraid the media and such will always point to the fact that they must help in an accident.........simplez

There is also the question of proportionality. If the risk of an accident is sufficiently small we don't bother to protect against it.

People come by head injuries in many ways. Pedestrians and car users have a similar rate of head injuries to cyclists. Old people stumble on the stairs. Young people on an evening drinking make up a fair part of the A & E clientele. These other risks are not seen as demanding a plastic hat.

What the helmets for cycling advocates are implying is that cycling is exceptionally dangerous to the head. They are saying that cycling is not the sort of everyday activity which one can indulge in wearing normal clothing.

There are countries where one can jump on ones bike in the same outfit as one wore at work or school without being told to wear a helmet. These countries have a much lower injury rate for cyclists than the UK. Their people cycle many more miles than us. They are not as tubby.

There are countries where cycling is regarded as such a dangerous pursuit that helmets are mandated. Their people cycles many fewer miles than us. They have a much higher casualty rate, and are, on average, fatter.

So it is not a simple question of whether or not helmets might help in an impact. ( The evidence from population studies is that they don't, but that is another question ).

[bovlomov]

All this to-ing and frowing the simple fact is, until someone can categorically prove that helmets have no benefit however minor...........then I am afraid the media and such will always point to the fact that they must help in an accident.........simplez

I don't think it would be honest to try to prove that there are no benefits in individual cases. On a population level the weight of proof is that there are no benefits, but the arguments are too complex for the mass media to bother with.

But it isn't necessarily so, that the media will always promote helmet use. There are plenty of examples where received wisdom has been overturned almost overnight. Most media outlets adopt the new position with enthusiasm, and never acknowledge that they were ever cheerleaders for the old regime.

[mjr]

As has been repeated many times on here nobody is anti-helmet in the sense that they want to force or even persuade others not to wear them,

Sorry to disprove that but I think I'm becoming of the opinion that I want to persuade people not to wear these wasteful apparently-net-useless pieces of plastic and end our country's historically low levels of helmet use that apparently hinder introduction of a mandatory helmet law. They are basically an irrelevance and each pound spent on helmet promotion is a pound not being spent on reducing road dangers or increasing cycling.

I feel they also make cycling look scarier than it is but I didn't really notice that until I moved back to a place where few wear helmets. There's a sort of widespread joy and innocence about riding here in our chaotic pootletons which I feel would be reduced if we all wore uniforms of fluo and hard hats. It would probably look more like some sort of militia and less like, well, humanity!

I even think it could be a good thing if helmets were banned for public open road riding because I suspect the people who currently wear them would take fewer risks with the safety of themselves and other riders, and generally behave in a less hotheaded manner. There's been at least one study suggesting that helmets lead to brain heating and impaired decision-making in cricket (The effects of wearing protective helmets on attentional processes in young cricketers - Neave et al. 2004, Northumbria University Cognitive Science Unit) - does that happen in cycling too?

[Mike Sales]

I think I agree with mjr. I would like to persuade others not to wear them. Banning them though would be almost as bad as compulsion.

[Bicycler]

Yeah, I worried about that sentence as I wrote it. Is it fairer to say that we do not wish to put pressure on others not to wear helmets?

[Sooper8]

I've no real interest in the helmet debate but thought I'd bring to peoples attention that I know a number of schools that have , or are introducing, a rule that youngsters can't ride their bike to school unless they wear a helmet.