Spain and the helmet debate

[mattheus]

I have split the 'Changes in Spain for Cyclists (Helmets and Hiviz)' thread in Touring & Expedition - viewtopic.php?t=163946, and moved posts which are about the pros and cons of helmets to this new thread.

Please preserve the distinction between the two threads when posting.

Please could you kindly explain why you moved my post from the touring and expedition group to this one debating the merits of wearing helmets rather than keeping it in the touring expedition group which I feel it is most suited as it is where I intended it to be as my input was about us riding in Spain which we have a lot of experience of? Secondly please can you explain why and on what grounds you feel you have the arbitrary right to effectively censor opinions you do not agree with?

Given that I'm reading and replying to your post, how can you think it's been censored?

(and surely it's obvious that debates about helmet use/effectivity go in this board, rather than one providing information to travellers - although that's the Mods decision, not mine, so I shouldn't speak for them.)

[[XAP]Bob]

There are always those screaming and whining about infringement of civil liberties etc being forced to wear a helmet against their choice etc, but if they do get hit by a car and hit their head, they are the ones who are going to end up dead without wearing a helmet if it could have saved their life.

I've been looking at "the helmet debate" in considerable detail for over 20 years, and while I have come across some folk worried about civil liberties they're quite rare. Almost as rare as the genuinely "anti helmet" types who want to actively discourage or ban their use.

Most of the people having problems with helmet promotion/requirement come from the angle of it not actually having a proven track record of making people any safer (notwithstanding the numerous "it saved my life!" anecdotes), it arguably having put a lot of people off cycling to the detriment of public health and distracting folk from measures that actually make a tangible, useful difference to cycling safety.

Pete.

If helmets were appropriately marketed, with an emphasis on their design limitations... then we might be able to have a straight debate...
But the helmet proponents have a tendency to overstate the capability of the devices, and to assert that it's always better to have something than nothing. Given the massive degree of overstatement of the capability of the devices, the second sort of follows, but it's just not the case.

The other common argument is "something must be done, this is something, so we must do this" - and it rather seems like this is what has driven laws in various places.

[pjclinch]

If helmets were appropriately marketed, with an emphasis on their design limitations... then we might be able to have a straight debate...

There's two broad flavours of marketing, vendor driven and advocate driven. Of the former, from the folk actually making/selling the things, there is a remarkable lack of anything much about life saving and safety track record. What they don't say is, to my mind, quite instructive about the limitations.

For example, I took a semi-random (first brand that popped in to my head, wave mouse about and click) look at a helmet online, as it happens a Kask Valegro (yours for £185). It is rated for aerodynamics, ventilation and lightness. The detail tells me,

IF Award Design 2018

Absolute freedom in the wild outdoors: every athlete deserves a comfortable, light helmet even during extreme exertion. Valegro, developed in collaboration with Team INEOS Grenadiers, offers extreme lightness and top-level ventilation even on the toughest climbs and hottest roads.

and tech specs are given as...

Materials
Inner padding material: 87% nylon - 9% polyester - 4% other fibers
Chinstrap material: Faux Leather
Shell finish: Shiny
Standard Detail
Standard: CE / UKCA - EN 1078
Weight
Weight: 180 GRAM

Which tells us pretty much nothing about what can be expected of it in terms of taking a whack.
Why so quiet about that? My guess is that the legal departments won't let anybody even think of going there lest it cost them a great deal of money...

Pete.