Why I am amazed by people being put off by helmets

[Tigerbiten]

Downhill run into a local mini roundabout, going straight on, so around 25mph is easy.
I like that speed the speed as it gets me up the slope on the other side to the right turn a hundred yards further on.
I can take it faster but then it gets iffy stopping if someone is turning right from my exit.
Don't think the driver realized the speed I was going when they pulled out from the left turning right in front of me.
I was able to swerve behind the car but then had to tighten the turn into my exit a lot so I didn't hit the curb.
The camber/speed was to much for the resultant turn so over I went.

[roubaixtuesday]

Just rolled my bent trike for the 5th time.
Hit the ground at around 25 mph, luckily landed on my artificial arm.
Lost around 1 square inch of skin, broke a few ribs, head never came close to the ground.
That's why I don't think wearing a helmet on my low bent trike is worth it.

Wow. Get well soon!

[pjclinch]

I don't think it makes me take more risks it's part of my cycling outfit is a helmet

If you think it offers you some protection it is highly likely you take more risks with it than you would without it, it's simply a case of human nature and our response to risk with extra protection.

Note that this is not a suggestion you shouldn't wear it. I certainly don't go e.g. mountain biking at trail centres to be as safe as possible, I do it to have fun. That manner of fun may have me doing a SUD in the middle of a rock garden where frankly I'd sooner be wearing mine than not... but without the helmet on I'd be far more likely to take the B-line at a more prudent speed, which is safer, but not why I went there.
Think of the descent where your pal broke his arm and ask yourself if you'd be fine to do it without your lid? If it's "just part of your outfit" it shouldn't make any difference but if you're like me you'll think, "I'm not doing that without a helmet!" And if you think that, and are willing to do it with a helmet, then it's the difference between taking more risk and not.

Pete.

[mjr]

[...] Pretty sure I had mild concussion. Since then I've always worn a helmet

Cycle helmets are not sufficient to do much about concussion. Some manuals literally warn about that. It's a really odd reason to wear one.

and it doesn't bother me at all. It literally takes less than 15 seconds to put a helmet on. I've had my current helmet for 5 years, a £15.00 special offer On-One helmet from PlanetX, and it's comfy, and it doesn't look that stupid.

So you know it does look somewhat stupid, then. And the time to put it on isn't a problem I remember seeing before, so that looks like an Aunt Sally to knock down.

You may find yours comfy, but I think that's rationalising, as it's never going to be as comfy as not having 150+g of wall insulation strapped on top of your head.

A 5 year old helmet is probably life-expired unless you don't ride much and keep it in a cool dark place.

My helmet protects my head, it wasn't expensive, it's definitely not a faff and when I stop anywhere for coffee or an ice-cream, or go into a shop, I lock the helmet to my bike.

Ah, so your helmet has been clobbered by an unknown number of other bikes being parked or removed, as well as being too old. I think there's a drastically reduced chance of that one protecting someone in an impact.

[Cugel]

[...] Pretty sure I had mild concussion. Since then I've always worn a helmet

Cycle helmets are not sufficient to do much about concussion. Some manuals literally warn about that. It's a really odd reason to wear one.

and it doesn't bother me at all. It literally takes less than 15 seconds to put a helmet on. I've had my current helmet for 5 years, a £15.00 special offer On-One helmet from PlanetX, and it's comfy, and it doesn't look that stupid.

So you know it does look somewhat stupid, then. And the time to put it on isn't a problem I remember seeing before, so that looks like an Aunt Sally to knock down.

You may find yours comfy, but I think that's rationalising, as it's never going to be as comfy as not having 150+g of wall insulation strapped on top of your head.

A 5 year old helmet is probably life-expired unless you don't ride much and keep it in a cool dark place.

My helmet protects my head, it wasn't expensive, it's definitely not a faff and when I stop anywhere for coffee or an ice-cream, or go into a shop, I lock the helmet to my bike.

Ah, so your helmet has been clobbered by an unknown number of other bikes being parked or removed, as well as being too old. I think there's a drastically reduced chance of that one protecting someone in an impact.

For many, the helmet appears to be a juju to ward away the injury-gremlin rather than anything adjudged on the basis of actual protection it gives if falling and banging one's noggin on summick. Hence the moniker "magic hat". Of course, the operation of juju can be complicated. In this case the helmet juju seems to attract a crash-gremlin instead, at which point the injury-gremlin gets in on the feast. Gremlins are misery-scavengers and gather together in various forms, like vultures, hyenas and the like at a corpse.

Personally I think of a lack of cycling personal protection devices as a sort of virtual spike-in-the-steering wheel. It makes one take the requisite amount of care when cycling, as the spike would when driving. Of course, some would merely unsee the spike, as they do with the various cycling dangers. One cannot save the wilfully incompetent from themselves.

[deeferdonk]

Personally I think of a lack of cycling personal protection devices as a sort of virtual spike-in-the-steering wheel. It makes one take the requisite amount of care when cycling, as the spike would when driving. Of course, some would merely unsee the spike, as they do with the various cycling dangers. One cannot save the wilfully incompetent from themselves.

This meta analysis of studies concludes this is not the case for bike helmets.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 818305941

5. Conclusions
Supporters of risk compensation argue against bicycle helmet wearing as they hypothesise the protective benefit is offset by risky behaviour. This systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature found little to no supportive evidence of the risk compensation hypothesis and bicycle helmet wearing. Although two out of the 23 studies were supportive of risk compensation, ten other studies found helmet wearing was associated with safer cycling behaviour.

[mjr]

This meta analysis of studies concludes this is not the case for bike helmets.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 818305941

That meta analysis with a secret protocol includes notorious Australia-based helmet fan Jake Olivier among its authors, has more self-reports ("anecdata") and experiments than real-world data in its selection and that seems to be only crash data, cites the helmet fan's other works and, worst of all, cites the flawed Thompson, Thompson, Rivara (them of the 90% reduction claim) uncritically.

It tells us little more than an academic helmet fan likes helmets.

[pjclinch]

This meta analysis of studies concludes...

I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out that meta-analysis, including systematic review, is subject to the quality of its inputs: garbage in, garbage out, in other words.

There is, as mjr suggests, a quality thresholding problem with the selection of work in that review, so it's hard to be sure whether its conclusions are meaningful or an elaborate turd-polishing exercise.

In other words, despite the claims of Prof. Olivier that anyone disagreeing with it is roughly on a par with the anti-vax and climate change denial movements, the work quoted doesn't actually progress our certainty beyond "not proven".

Pete.

[drossall]

Also I think the claim that:

Supporters of risk compensation argue against bicycle helmet wearing as they hypothesise the protective benefit is offset by risky behaviour...

is a misunderstanding. As I think I have mentioned before, I've been watching the debate since helmets came on the market. Risk compensation and other points were introduced not as arguments against helmet wearing, but as attempts to explain why helmets were plainly not producing the kinds of reduction in casualty rates that some of the studies were claiming should be the case. There were others, again for the same reason.

[irc]

Also I think the claim that:

Supporters of risk compensation argue against bicycle helmet wearing as they hypothesise the protective benefit is offset by risky behaviour...

is a misunderstanding. As I think I have mentioned before, I've been watching the debate since helmets came on the market. Risk compensation and other points were introduced not as arguments against helmet wearing, but as attempts to explain why helmets were plainly not producing the kinds of reduction in casualty rates that some of the studies were claiming should be the case. There were others, again for the same reason.

Seems obvious to me why fatalities were not reduced as much as hoped. They provide only a certain amount of protection to one part of the body.

The only recent cyclists fatality in my local area was where a rider was hit by a left turning hgv she had undertaken at a junction then dragged along the road.

Her helmet didn't save her life.

[pjclinch]

Also I think the claim that:

Supporters of risk compensation argue against bicycle helmet wearing as they hypothesise the protective benefit is offset by risky behaviour...

is a misunderstanding. As I think I have mentioned before, I've been watching the debate since helmets came on the market. Risk compensation and other points were introduced not as arguments against helmet wearing, but as attempts to explain why helmets were plainly not producing the kinds of reduction in casualty rates that some of the studies were claiming should be the case. There were others, again for the same reason.

Indeed. Jake Oliver is keen to bang on about "anti helmet advocates" which, given they are vanishingly rare and hold practically no influence in the so-called "helmet debate", suggests he doesn't really understand the framing of it.

"These things aren't as great as you're making out" and "these things don't appear to be a significant factor in gross bicycle safety across populations" aren't at all the same thing as anti-helmet advocacy, which would be more like "these things should be actively discouraged".

Pete.

[warey4life]

[...] Pretty sure I had mild concussion. Since then I've always worn a helmet

Cycle helmets are not sufficient to do much about concussion. Some manuals literally warn about that. It's a really odd reason to wear one.

and it doesn't bother me at all. It literally takes less than 15 seconds to put a helmet on. I've had my current helmet for 5 years, a £15.00 special offer On-One helmet from PlanetX, and it's comfy, and it doesn't look that stupid.

So you know it does look somewhat stupid, then. And the time to put it on isn't a problem I remember seeing before, so that looks like an Aunt Sally to knock down.

You may find yours comfy, but I think that's rationalising, as it's never going to be as comfy as not having 150+g of wall insulation strapped on top of your head.

A 5 year old helmet is probably life-expired unless you don't ride much and keep it in a cool dark place.

My helmet protects my head, it wasn't expensive, it's definitely not a faff and when I stop anywhere for coffee or an ice-cream, or go into a shop, I lock the helmet to my bike.

Ah, so your helmet has been clobbered by an unknown number of other bikes being parked or removed, as well as being too old. I think there's a drastically reduced chance of that one protecting someone in an impact.

I have a really simple take on this matter, having some cushioning between your skull and some concrete, reduces your chance of damaging your skull should you fall off and bang your head on the concrete. Wearing no helmet will offer no protection.

We have similar people at work. Last year an engineer knocked himself out by banging his head on an RSJ in a roof plant room, he had a lump the size of a golf ball. Now, anyone who goes into any plant room on that particular site must wear a bump camp, otherwise you cannot go into a plant room. This caused an uproar. Many contractors are constantly complaining about being forced to where a bump cap, some are refusing to. I just wear one, doesn't bother me. The simple irrefutable fact is, if the chap who had banged his head on an RSJ had been wearing a bump cap, it almost definitely would have prevented his injury, or at least lessened it.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but you'll never change the fact that wearing a helmet offers head protection, and not wearing a helmet offers no head protection.

Even though my helmet is 5 years old, if I was to headbutt a wall wearing it, I'd probably suffer slight discomfort, but if I was to headbutt a wall without wearing it, I'd almost definitely suffer an injury.

Another thought, why do footballers wear shinpads? Who's ever heard of someone getting shin injuries playing football?

[warey4life]

Just rolled my bent trike for the 5th time.
Hit the ground at around 25 mph, luckily landed on my artificial arm.
Lost around 1 square inch of skin, broke a few ribs, head never came close to the ground.
That's why I don't think wearing a helmet on my low bent trike is worth it.

I fell off my bike once and my head did hit the ground. That's why I think wearing a helmet is worth it.

[roubaixtuesday]

Just rolled my bent trike for the 5th time.
Hit the ground at around 25 mph, luckily landed on my artificial arm.
Lost around 1 square inch of skin, broke a few ribs, head never came close to the ground.
That's why I don't think wearing a helmet on my low bent trike is worth it.

I fell off my bike once and my head did hit the ground. That's why I think wearing a helmet is worth it.

Yeah, I fell off my bike once and grazed my knee. That's why i think wearing a suit of armour is worth it.

[mattheus]

We have similar people at work. Last year an engineer knocked himself out by banging his head on an RSJ in a roof plant room, he had a lump the size of a golf ball. Now, anyone who goes into any plant room on that particular site must wear a bump camp, otherwise you cannot go into a plant room. This caused an uproar. Many contractors are constantly complaining about being forced to where a bump cap, some are refusing to. I just wear one, doesn't bother me. The simple irrefutable fact is, if the chap who had banged his head on an RSJ had been wearing a bump cap, it almost definitely would have prevented his injury, or at least lessened it.

Do you think you'd be safer - or less safe - wearing the helmets that are used inside submarines?