The ins and outs of cycling helmets
Discussion
Can we keep this in GG to save anyone trying to blame cyclists with or without helmets
from having to look in pedal power
For starters here's a link to risk compensation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
But it's more involved than that
from having to look in pedal power
For starters here's a link to risk compensation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
But it's more involved than that
I can only try
As Double D said in the cycling deaths in London thread
Look as the obvious doesnt seem to be obvious I'll start another thread for youSo a helmet can protect your head then?
As Double D said in the cycling deaths in London thread
DoubleD said:
saaby93 said:
DoubleD said:
So are you saying that a your head would hurt more with a helmet on if you bashed your head against a wall?
NoLook as the obvious doesnt seem to be obvious I'll start another thread for you
What are you actually trying to get at here?
I'm a cyclist, won't ride without one. Nothing to do with feeling safer hence more bravado, more the fact I've seen enough heads split open from people not wearing them and have trashed a few myself so know how much they protect you.
I don't think they should be compulsory, maybe promoted more though.
I'm a cyclist, won't ride without one. Nothing to do with feeling safer hence more bravado, more the fact I've seen enough heads split open from people not wearing them and have trashed a few myself so know how much they protect you.
I don't think they should be compulsory, maybe promoted more though.
Zippee said:
What are you actually trying to get at here?
I'm a cyclist, won't ride without one. Nothing to do with feeling safer hence more bravado, more the fact I've seen enough heads split open from people not wearing them and have trashed a few myself so know how much they protect you.
I don't think they should be compulsory, maybe promoted more though.
I'm with Zippee. I'm a cyclist too and wear a helmet every time I ride for exactly the same reasons.I'm a cyclist, won't ride without one. Nothing to do with feeling safer hence more bravado, more the fact I've seen enough heads split open from people not wearing them and have trashed a few myself so know how much they protect you.
I don't think they should be compulsory, maybe promoted more though.
I don't expect it to perform miracles, but the chances of coming out of an incident in better shape whilst wearing one seem much higher, to me, than if not wearing one.
My kids would wear them until I had no say in the matter.
If other adult cyclists choose not to wear one, that's OK with me.
If it was made compulsory, that's OK with me too
Zippee and jpjpjp,
The argument is that increasing safety leads to more risk taking and negates any benefit. Loads of fringe studies suggest it and its pretty reasonable as a theme - if the risk taking actually fully negates the benefits (as opposed to being a minor factor) is far, far from accepted and established.
Anyway, we should stop driving lessons and driving tests as it's safer to feel like you're really dangerous.
The argument is that increasing safety leads to more risk taking and negates any benefit. Loads of fringe studies suggest it and its pretty reasonable as a theme - if the risk taking actually fully negates the benefits (as opposed to being a minor factor) is far, far from accepted and established.
Anyway, we should stop driving lessons and driving tests as it's safer to feel like you're really dangerous.
That's the gist of it (excluding your last sentence)
If we're not careful it ends up in a yellow banana argument
Someone says bananas are yellow
and someone replies with
so youre saying that everything thats yellow is a banana
To which you say No
and they come back with
so youre not saying bananas are yellow
and the circle continues
If we're not careful it ends up in a yellow banana argument
Someone says bananas are yellow
and someone replies with
so youre saying that everything thats yellow is a banana
To which you say No
and they come back with
so youre not saying bananas are yellow
and the circle continues
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 6th May 13:31
First up as said in the other thread if anyone wants to wear a helmet you shouldnt tell them not to
and if they dont want to wear a helmet you cant say overall it's safer to wear one
If they were that beneficial we'd have had legislation in place years ago.
The issue is that although for a specific purpose you can see a helmet cushions the brain in some accidents, the proportion of those accidents is small. So you can think for that small number its still worth wearing one.
For other collisions for instance if you get run over by a bus , youre run over by a bus helmet or not isnt going to make much difference
The question is if youre wearing a helmet are you more likely to ride more riskly and stand greater chance of getting into an altercation with a bus
It's called 'risk compensation'
Similarly are you likely to take part in more risky cycling activities, if youre wearing a helmet?
It's worse than that though.
If you're wearing a helmet how do other road users treat you?
If they subconsciously think youre safer with a helmet, do they make less allowance for you
If overall, all that adds up to more injuries with a helmet than without, who would recommend it?
Finally in places where theyve tried mandating helmet use, it's tipped the balance for some people in making them think cycling is dangerous, so they wont do it.
Less people cycling = less general health
Think thats a fair summary of current sate of play- go for it
and overall leave it to personal choice
and if they dont want to wear a helmet you cant say overall it's safer to wear one
If they were that beneficial we'd have had legislation in place years ago.
The issue is that although for a specific purpose you can see a helmet cushions the brain in some accidents, the proportion of those accidents is small. So you can think for that small number its still worth wearing one.
For other collisions for instance if you get run over by a bus , youre run over by a bus helmet or not isnt going to make much difference
The question is if youre wearing a helmet are you more likely to ride more riskly and stand greater chance of getting into an altercation with a bus
It's called 'risk compensation'
Similarly are you likely to take part in more risky cycling activities, if youre wearing a helmet?
It's worse than that though.
If you're wearing a helmet how do other road users treat you?
If they subconsciously think youre safer with a helmet, do they make less allowance for you
If overall, all that adds up to more injuries with a helmet than without, who would recommend it?
Finally in places where theyve tried mandating helmet use, it's tipped the balance for some people in making them think cycling is dangerous, so they wont do it.
Less people cycling = less general health
Think thats a fair summary of current sate of play- go for it
and overall leave it to personal choice
TimmyMallett said:
Take risk compensation and apply to cars. Attach a big spike instead of an airbag. I suspect you'd see less accidents.
Also, an increase in sharp headaches.
no the spike goes into the yellow bananas argumentAlso, an increase in sharp headaches.
Most people would continue to drive safely despite the spike being there
then when the inevitable occasional accident occurs they get spiked
Arnold Cunningham said:
I'm only able to reply to this thread because I WAS wearing a cycling helmet.
Thats great 
It goes into the cases where a helmet does its job
Unfortunately we're not going to get the ones posting where it didnt work with or without a helmet
And there are loads of people who are ok every day with or without a helmet too
I admire your confidence in legislation. I don't share your view that if it was safer it would have been legislated however. And the Highway Code does recommend it I think?
Where do you get the data about helmets only helping in a small number of instances?
Google "bicycle helmet statistics" and give us some feedback on the US stats used there. I'm not claiming they are gospel, but they paint a very different picture to yours.
Where do you get the data about helmets only helping in a small number of instances?
Google "bicycle helmet statistics" and give us some feedback on the US stats used there. I'm not claiming they are gospel, but they paint a very different picture to yours.
The risk compensation argument is rolled out in every debate about helmets.
And it is valid, there is no doubt about that.
But, for me and those that I might have any form of control over (if I had kids for instance), a good quality cycle helmet is worn on every ride. That decision is one for me and my interpretation of the evidence available to me.
As I said before, if other adults make the informed choice not to wear a cycle helmet, that is OK with me too.
I have no wish to even start to begin thinking about influencing them to change their mind.
And it is valid, there is no doubt about that.
But, for me and those that I might have any form of control over (if I had kids for instance), a good quality cycle helmet is worn on every ride. That decision is one for me and my interpretation of the evidence available to me.
As I said before, if other adults make the informed choice not to wear a cycle helmet, that is OK with me too.
I have no wish to even start to begin thinking about influencing them to change their mind.
This article shows the knot even some government type departments get into over safety
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
I think that photo without the words has been discussed in another thread here too
Can you see a photo there or is it being blocked by some browsers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
I think that photo without the words has been discussed in another thread here too
Can you see a photo there or is it being blocked by some browsers
saaby93 said:
no the spike goes into the yellow bananas argument
Most people would continue to drive safely despite the spike being there
then when the inevitable occasional accident occurs they get spiked
Forget a spike - let's say older cars with none collapsing steering columns.Most people would continue to drive safely despite the spike being there
then when the inevitable occasional accident occurs they get spiked
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I really think this is a good analogy to a helmet in every case other than how others behave around you (which has extremely limited and inconclusive evidence anyway).
This discussion has actually changed my view. I came into it thinking helmets should continue to be optional (I rather ride a push bike without). But those stats from the US dept for transport have me doing more research, and added to the fact that the outcome does affect sentencing. I'm starting to feel it should be legislated and I think I'm going to start wearing it all the time when I cycle.
saaby93 said:
This article shows the knot even some government type departments get into over safety
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
I think that photo without the words has been discussed in another thread here too
Can you see a photo there or is it being blocked by some browsers
Not very nice calling her a horse.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
I think that photo without the words has been discussed in another thread here too
Can you see a photo there or is it being blocked by some browsers
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff