My lack of helmet worked for me.

[pjclinch]

I still just don't understand why when there is a piece of safety equipment available that is barely any inconvenience at all, why anyone would seek to try to discredit the safety credentials of using said equipment.

Then why not wear it around the house and when driving?
You're applying different standards of "common sense" to different activities based on the culture around them rather than the actual risk attached to them.

If I was city riding in the Netherlands, on their wonderful cycle networks and at Dutch city speeds (15-20kph, if I were to guess), then yes, I would be less bothered by wearing one.

But I ride a lot quicker than that. I'm just back from 65km of technical, slippery, loose gravel riding where I averaged 29kph, hitting over 60kph. I am a bloody careful rider, and touch-wood, I've not fallen off for 18 months (which is about 24,000km).

If you are on the one hand a "bloody careful rider" and on the other are hitting 60 kph on technical, slippery, loose gravel, I would suggest that we have "for some values of bloody careful".

The consequences of falling off at those speeds could be very severe. If a helmet reduces my chance of serious head injury even by 20%, then it's well worth having.

You say "even by 20%", but where does that figure come from? The known benefits of helmets against serious injury are ~ 0 plus or minus error bars (i.e., we don't really know).

I accept that many don't like using them. That's fine and it's understandable. I'm not going to tell you to put a helmet on as an adult. But please don't try to tell me that there isn't a safety benefit of having a helmet, or that the evidence is contentious. It is a valuable bit of safety equipment that should be used by any sport cyclist.

But the evidence is contentious, and you need to think about what "safety" means. They're designed to (and can be expected to) mitigate minor injuries from low energy falls, typically the sort of thing that people don't bother going to A&E for. Your final sentence is a statement of belief derived from sport cycling culture, not from hard evidence.

Pete.

[Jon in Sweden]

I accept that many don't like using them. That's fine and it's understandable. I'm not going to tell you to put a helmet on as an adult. But please don't try to tell me that there isn't a safety benefit of having a helmet, or that the evidence is contentious. It is a valuable bit of safety equipment that should be used by any sport cyclist.

I believe the technical term is "oxymoron".

I disagree. I believe that as a sport cyclist that a helment should be used but I am not going to tell you to put one on.

Fundamentally, I can't imagine that any rider would be permitted to race without one, so there isn't any choice in that regard.

[roubaixtuesday]

I accept that many don't like using them. That's fine and it's understandable. I'm not going to tell you to put a helmet on as an adult. But please don't try to tell me that there isn't a safety benefit of having a helmet, or that the evidence is contentious. It is a valuable bit of safety equipment that should be used by any sport cyclist.

I believe the technical term is "oxymoron".

I disagree. I believe that as a sport cyclist that a helment should be used but I am not going to tell you to put one on.

Fundamentally, I can't imagine that any rider would be permitted to race without one, so there isn't any choice in that regard.

You literally wrote that I, and all other "sport cyclists" should wear one!

How is that not telling me to wear one?

You're contradicting yourself.

[Jon in Sweden]

Then why not wear it around the house and when driving?
You're applying different standards of "common sense" to different activities based on the culture around them rather than the actual risk attached to them.

If you are on the one hand a "bloody careful rider" and on the other are hitting 60 kph on technical, slippery, loose gravel, I would suggest that we have "for some values of bloody careful".

You say "even by 20%", but where does that figure come from? The known benefits of helmets against serious injury are ~ 0 plus or minus error bars (i.e., we don't really know).

But the evidence is contentious, and you need to think about what "safety" means. They're designed to (and can be expected to) mitigate minor injuries from low energy falls, typically the sort of thing that people don't bother going to A&E for. Your final sentence is a statement of belief derived from sport cycling culture, not from hard evidence.

Pete.

I am preparing to race next year. I have to ride at speed, but I ride at speeds that I am confident at, drawing from about 18,000km of gravel riding over the past 30 months.

The 20% figure was plucked out of the air because I didn't feel the need to look it up. So I looked it up - it's 58-60%

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x

Just to be clear - I am entirely fine with anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet. But please do not try to convince me that it is somehow safer not to wear head protection.

[Jon in Sweden]

You literally wrote that I, and all other "sport cyclists" should wear one!

How is that not telling me to wear one?

You're contradicting yourself.

It's semantics perhaps, but my feeling that sport cyclists should wear one is not the same as me telling someone to wear one. They are not one and the same.

[roubaixtuesday]

You literally wrote that I, and all other "sport cyclists" should wear one!

How is that not telling me to wear one?

You're contradicting yourself.

It's semantics perhaps, but my feeling that sport cyclists should wear one is not the same as me telling someone to wear one. They are not one and the same.

Sure they are.

Or is "Jon, you should not wear a helmet" not telling you you should not wear a helmet.

[Nearholmer]

You should.

You must.

Very different meanings. One is advice, the other an instruction.

[pjclinch]

I am preparing to race next year. I have to ride at speed, but I ride at speeds that I am confident at, drawing from about 18,000km of gravel riding over the past 30 months.

No, you don't have to ride at speed, you choose to ride at speed. This significantly increases your risk of injury. I'm not suggesting you're wrong to do that, but if you're going to say on the one hand it's irresponsible for you as a father of young children to ride without a lightweight helmet designed to mitigate minor injuries from a low energy impact (and not at all protective of most of your body where damage could affect your ability as a bread-winner) but it's okay to ride at high speed in an environment where helmeted cyclists have been killed in higher energy impacts then we are very much in the realm of rationalisation. Gino Mäder was killed on a descent of the sort he was a paid professional at doing, I'd confidently predict he clocked rather more than 18K over the last 30 months of his life: experience in something like bike racing is just a way of letting you take more risks at your level of perceived acceptable risk.

This is not particularly a criticism, it's a very human thing to do and we all do it, but it's useful to realise when you're using cold hard logic and objective risk management approaches and when you're just going by gut feeling and rationalising it.

The 20% figure was plucked out of the air because I didn't feel the need to look it up. So I looked it up - it's 58-60%

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x

I don't know how many times it needs to be explained that the literature is incredibly inconsistent and that the hospital studies that take up a significant part of it have a track record of vastly over-predicting the benefits compared to what is seen in the real world, and that assuming what comes out of "average" A&E admissions for cycling injuries on roads has much bearing on gravel racing in Sweden is not necessarily a good assumption, but apparently at least one more time.

You believe the evidence says 58-60% better in terms of serious injury, an expert in evidence based medicine says the evidence is a "complex contradictory mess". It's hard to see both being right.

Just to be clear - I am entirely fine with anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet. But please do not try to convince me that it is somehow safer not to wear head protection.

Where has anybody tried to convince you that you'll be safer if you don't wear a helmet?
Please quote the exact words where you think someone is trying to suggest that.

Pete.

[mattheus]

You should.

You must.

Very different meanings. One is advice, the other an instruction.

It's a lot more subtle than that! But that would be an endless digression ...

I'll just make one comment on this: you don't hear helmet-wearers being told "You shouldn't wear a helmet!"
[well OK, Rule34 probably means you can find any text with google, but it's about a zillion times less common than
"You SHOULD wear a helmet". Or
"You SHOULD wear a helmet if you value your brain!" Or
"It's common sense - everyone should wear a helmet!" etc ... ]

[Nearholmer]

It's a lot more subtle than that

I know that.

Just that I’m quite enjoying this latest pointless helmet argument, and I thought I’d give it a little nudge to help ensure that it remains simmering.

[axel_knutt]

It doesn't affect my riding

This is the mistake that everyone makes, they all think the difference in behaviour must be large, and noticeable, but it isn't. I quick thought about the numbers involved will show you that it's tiny - far too small to be consciously aware of. For example, the change in behaviour required to negate the advantage of seatbelts is one extra accident in a million miles or so of driving, no single person can evaluate that from their own personal experience, it takes statistical analysis of a large sample.

Sweat is an issue, but it's an issue regardless of whether you wear a helmet or not.

Absolutely not the case in my experience.

I'm not anti helmet, I always wear one commuting, but there are issues with them.

Doesn't Spanish law have a concession to leave them off in hot weather?

I cannot, as the father of two young children and primary breadwinner, justify cycling without one. It lowers the risk and it's something that I regard as being a reasonable measure to take.

Can you really not see that this is just begging the question?

This has wound on for a few pages, but I’m still utterly baffled as to how not wearing a helmet can “work” for anybody ……. What ”work” is it postulated to perform; what positive effect is it meant to achieve for the individual not-wearer?

It's obvious the title of the thread is a parody of the "My helmet worked for me" thread, and it alludes to the possibility that it's wearing a helmet rather than not wearing a helmet that increases your risk of injury.

There seems to be some suggestion from some research that it might lead motorists to treat the not-wearer slightly more cautiously that a wearer, but I don’t think anyone would regard not-wearing as a talisman against being hit by an incautious motorist, would they?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that either a helmet or no helmet is a talisman, the issue is a shift in risk one way or the other, not some sort of immunity.

And, there are the usual suggestions that putting a helmet on makes a cyclist behave less cautiously, which isn’t backed by evidence.

Er, yes there is, I've posted some of it on this forum. As I've also said before, the interesting question is why there's a stubborn refusal to conduct further research into it.

But, I still genuinely don’t “get” what is being asserted here.

I think you do. You may not agree with it, but I think you can see what's being argued.

I still just don't understand why when there is a piece of safety equipment available that is barely any inconvenience at all, why anyone would seek to try to discredit the safety credentials of using said equipment.

please don't try to tell me that there isn't a safety benefit of having a helmet, or that the evidence is contentious. It is a valuable bit of safety equipment that should be used by any sport cyclist.

More question begging.

In order to be rational, any argument has to start from a set of axioms, and progress by step by step logical reasoning and evidence. If you presume something's axiomatic when you know that it isn't that's begging the question, and it's not a rational way to argue.

But I ride a lot quicker than that. I'm just back from 65km of technical, slippery, loose gravel riding where I averaged 29kph, hitting over 60kph. I am a bloody careful rider, and touch-wood, I've not fallen off for 18 months (which is about 24,000km).

If I am riding road, I ride considerably quicker again, with many of my rides averaging over 35kph, and I regularly exceed 70kph.

The consequences of falling off at those speeds could be very severe. If a helmet reduces my chance of serious head injury even by 20%, then it's well worth having.

You're not suggesting that you wouldn't ride like that if you weren't wearing a helmet by any chance, are you?

I'll just make one comment on this: you don't hear helmet-wearers being told "You shouldn't wear a helmet!"

More importantly, you don't hear anyone advocating a law to ban helmet wearing.

[Nearholmer]

I think you do. You may not agree with it, but I think you can see what's being argued.

I might be deliberately stirring the pot occasionally, but no, I genuinely don’t see what’s being argued. It would help thickies like me if someone could lay it out in plain English.

[Mike Sales]

The 20% figure was plucked out of the air because I didn't feel the need to look it up. So I looked it up - it's 58-60%

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x

So, if the helmet wearing rate of a whole nation's cyclists, because of a law mandating them, went from about a third to nearly one hundred percent overnight, the change in the cyclist casualty rate would be unmistakeable?
The nation is Australia, and the cycling casualty rate changed an insignificant amount, but for the worse.

[Nearholmer]

^^^

What happened could, and probably did, depend upon a whole host of confounding factors, the most likely being that the mandate deterred from cycling those least at risk of head injury, leaving a population of sporty types with a naturally higher risk profile.

[roubaixtuesday]

I think you do. You may not agree with it, but I think you can see what's being argued.

I might be deliberately stirring the pot occasionally, but no...

Well, I must admit, that possibility absolutely never once occurred to me. Not once.

But well done- you are performing an admirable public service. After all, what helmet debates could definitely do with is being stirred more.