Helmets - the definitive thread.. Mod Note - Please read Opening Post

The Davestator wrote: »

If i fall off my bike due to hitting a pothole, luas track etc, I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not.

That's your choice. But there's a big difference between expressing a personal choice and saying that a helmet is 'essential'.

CramCycle

The Davestator wrote: »

This argument really makes me laugh. (and despair for people who make it) (and not aimed at cram)

No offence taken,

My view, has been, and always will be, it should be a persons choice for a variety of reasons.

This said, I can see the argument on a population level. Study referenced in this pop science link: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-appetite-danger

Do I take more risks when wearing a helmet, yes I do, but that is more to do with the fact that I wear a helmet when taking part in risky activities. I don't think I take more risk heading down the shops but then again, I only wear my helmet heading to the shops if my child is with me as he has no choice thanks to his mother, therefore it would be impossible for me to explain that I don't have to do what he has to do. In that scenario, I think I take far less risks.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Just realised we are delving into helmet mega thread territory. I will move the posts over there later.

mcgratheoin

check_six wrote: »

Yes indeed, but the helmet is not going to make it more likely to be in a crash. It's more like saying that if you don't have rear passenger airbags you should be more liable if someone rams into the back of your car, even though there are no rear passengers and you are not at fault for the crash.

Haven't really nailed down the analogy, I was pointing out the legal weirdness of holding somebody partially liable in a collision where they were not at fault at all, due to their exercising of a personal preference.

Not getting into the helmet stuff, except that I'm "into cycling", I guess (I post here enough), but there are no activities I take part in that require a helmet. I never joined a club, never raced, don't do charity cycles. I just cycle around all the time, going place I have to be, carrying stuff I have to carry, sometimes a lot of stuff. I'm probably in a minority there.

I agree that cycling is not really free once the bike is bought, but not from the point of view of buying gear. Even if you're a frugal cyclist (as I certainly am) there are parts that require replacement, especially chains, brake pads, rims and tyres.

I worked it out years ago at a few cent a km (took the total spending on maintenance and component replacement over a year and divided by a rough estimate of the total travelled that year).

So it's very cheap, but if you're doing thousands of km a year, it'll probably cost you two hundred euro or so.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Haven't really nailed down the analogy, I was pointing out the legal weirdness of holding somebody partially liable in a collision where they were not at fault at all, due to their exercising of a personal preference.

I guess the argument is that a collision is to be expected at some stage, so you should be prepared for one, with ameliorating measures. If you aren't prepared, it's contributory negligence.

(I don't agree with this, just in case that's not clear.)

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not getting into the helmet stuff, except that I'm "into cycling", I guess (I post here enough), but there are no activities I take part in that require a helmet. I never joined a club, never raced, don't do charity cycles. I just cycle around all the time, going place I have to be, carrying stuff I have to carry, sometimes a lot of stuff. I'm probably in a minority there.

The context of the article* was cycling as an sporting 'activity'. Obviously this can be incidentally as transport, but it was alongside similar pieces on getting into running, GAA, martial arts, swimming, horse riding, etc.

Actually, out of interest - do any 'pure' utility cyclists wear padded shorts? (i.e. bought them just for heading to work/shops, and never go on spins around the countryside.)

*https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/get-active-do-you-want-to-get-fit-this-summer-here-s-all-you-need-1.3155164

buffalo wrote: »

Actually, out of interest - do any 'pure' utility cyclists wear padded shorts? (i.e. bought them just for heading to work/shops, and never go on spins around the countryside.)

Yeah, I wear padded shorts or bibs almost every day when commuting because I want to be as comfortable as possible. If I weren't pressured into going fast by motor traffic and no infrastructure, I would use a Dutch cruiser and normal clothes.

buffalo wrote: »

The context of the article* was cycling as an sporting 'activity'. Obviously this can be incidentally as transport, but it was alongside similar pieces on getting into running, GAA, martial arts, swimming, horse riding, etc.

Ah, yeah, that's a good point. Funnily enough, I don't see cycling in that light at all. It's lumped in with driving, getting the bus, walking and so on. Except that I feel enthusiastic about it.

buffalo wrote: »

Actually, out of interest - do any 'pure' utility cyclists wear padded shorts? (i.e. bought them just for heading to work/shops, and never go on spins around the countryside.)

Not me. I never do more than 30km in one go, so have never felt sore after a cycle.

rubadub

buffalo wrote: »

If you're getting into cycling you'll quickly find you need one. Joining a club? You'll find that any club spin requires a hard-shell helmet. Want to do a leisure event? You need a helmet! Partake in a race? Definitely.

So yes, for the active sporting cyclist, they quickly become essential.

He was not talking solely about competitive/sporting cycling though. I would not have much of an issue if he did say it is essential for those -I would like to see it pointed out that it is obligatory. At the very start he says it has many forms. Gently going around a park and commuting were mentioned. I took him to mean a helmet is essential in all cases. And I bet his (mad/insane/neglectful) parents let him out on a bike with no helmet when he was younger.

check_six wrote: »

Yes indeed, but the helmet is not going to make it more likely to be in a crash.

I believe it is and its one reason I rarely wear one.

The Davestator wrote: »

If i fall off my bike due to hitting a pothole, luas track etc, I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not.

Same could be said for falling over while walking, or being in a car crash. They keep asking the likes of A&E doctors and coroners "do you think he would have been saved if he was wearing a helmet" but only about cycling injuries -it's embarrassingly ridiculous logic.

I am sick of death of hearing irrational hypocritical people/media calling me "mad" or "reckless" for not wearing a helmet on a bike. It used to be benign and I would just shrug off their ignorance, but when it is effecting court cases etc it really has to be addressed.

The Davestator

rubadub wrote: »

He was not talking solely about competitive/sporting cycling though. I would not have much of an issue if he did say it is essential for those -I would like to see it pointed out that it is obligatory. At the very start he says it has many forms. Gently going around a park and commuting were mentioned. I took him to mean a helmet is essential in all cases. And I bet his (mad/insane/neglectful) parents let him out on a bike with no helmet when he was younger.

I believe it is and its one reason I rarely wear one.

Same could be said for falling over while walking, or being in a car crash. They keep asking the likes of A&E doctors and coroners "do you think he would have been saved if he was wearing a helmet" but only about cycling injuries -it's embarrassingly ridiculous logic.

I am sick of death of hearing irrational hypocritical people/media calling me "mad" or "reckless" for not wearing a helmet on a bike. It used to be benign and I would just shrug off their ignorance, but when it is effecting court cases etc it really has to be addressed.

If wearing a seat belt in a car was not law would you wear one? Do you wear a life jacket on water? Do you wear a helmet if sking?

Each to their own, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet when it's clearly dangerous to cycle in Ireland.

We do have the helmet mega-thread. Let's take it there maybe?

(Cycling is not specially dangerous. I'll just address that one, as it's not specifically a helmet comment. Cycling is about as dangerous as walking -- less so if you look at risk based on persons killed or seriously injured per 100 million km travelled, slightly more so based on KSIs per 100 million hours travelled.)

The Davestator wrote: »

Each to their own, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet when it's clearly dangerous to cycle in Ireland.

Do you choose to wear a helmet when in a car in Ireland? Far more head injuries and deaths occur in cars than on bikes - so if you are a big fan of helmets, wear one while driving.

This is classic Helmet Megathread territory. This thread will cease to be about journalism if it goes much further in this direction.

rubadub

The Davestator wrote: »

If wearing a seat belt in a car was not law would you wear one?

In the back of a car I would probably not, I don't bother most of the time on coaches either. In the front of the car I would most of the time. I would sooner wear a cycling style helmet in a car (along with a seatbelt) than on a bike. I do not think wearing a seatbelt makes me more likely to be in a crash. Like helmets I do not believe seatbelts are a benign safety feature either, you could become trapped in a car if unable to release it.

The Davestator wrote: »

Do you wear a life jacket on water?

I have only worn them a few times, I am a strong enough swimmer in open water. I would wear one with strong currents about if I was on a boat. With mates like mine I do expect I would be in greater danger of being pushed overboard if I was wearing a life jacket "for a laugh".

The Davestator wrote: »

Do you wear a helmet if sking?

If it was gentle cross country skiing then no, if it was downhill skiing then yes, just like I would wear a bike helmet if I went downhill MTB'ing, or cycling in very icy weather.

The Davestator wrote: »

Each to their own, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet when it's clearly dangerous to cycle in Ireland.

Many people seem to think like that, I genuinely do not understand why they are so hypocritical about it, why do they not wear helmets while out drinking or in cars. A&E depts are packed on the likes of paddys day, it's clearly dangerous to go out drinking in Ireland.

This is a good read http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

ThisRegard

Re life jacket, the question always thrown back is how strong a swimmer are you when unconscious? Or when a person who's not a great swimmer grabs onto you when in a panic and drags you down in the process.

I guess if we're going off-topic, but about swimming: I love swimming in gentle streams and coves. I wouldn't dream of wearing a life jacket. That's not swimming.

I suppose if I went whitewater rafting (which is not something I'd do, but let's speak theoretically) I would wear one, because the chances of being knocked overboard and rendered unconscious would be quite high compared to going for a gentle swim in a sheltered, shallow cove.

Just on the general attitude to risk (as opposed to the H-word), it is strange that we regard people who cycle to the shops without hiviz (there, avoided the H-word) as risk-takers, but regard people who rock-climb as responsible, once they're using the right equipment. The risk of injury is higher in the latter case, even when fully equipped.

I think John Adams (about whom I have mixed feelings, if I'm honest) had a good quote about risking your life responsibly.

I love those safety stats though. You can make them say whatever you want. Like, for example the NASA space shuttle had an accident record of 14 deaths over 500 million miles traveled. I found a link that says the KSI rate for cycling in the UK was 1,025 per billion miles in 2015. That suggests the space shuttle was 35 times safer than cycling in the UK, which is clearly nonsense. In terms of hours traveled the comparison would be more realistic.

I'd be fairly sceptical about direct comparisons between walking and cycling even when you account for that. Like for example, how many pedestrian accidents are caused partly by impairment due to alcohol? I'd say many more than with cycling.

I think risk can be reduced dramatically for both cycling and walking. But, for me anyway, there is a bottom line of unavoidable risk, associated with cycling on roads, whereas walking on footpaths in towns/cities can be made close to risk-free, and that's why I always wear a helmet (oops said it!) on the bike. But, it's all about context, and personal judgement of risk based on your own circumstances, which is why I'd never tell anyone else (other than my own family) to wear one.

Chips Lovell

The safety fallacy: Assumption that if a safety measure exists, then it is logical to take it.

plodder wrote: »

I love those safety stats though. You can make them say whatever you want.

This is an often stated view, but it's a misunderstanding of the discipline of statistics, which is about trying to make meaningful comparisons based on standardised methods.

plodder wrote: »

Like, for example the NASA space shuttle had an accident record of 14 deaths over 500 million miles traveled. I found a link that says the KSI rate for cycling in the UK was 1,025 per billion miles in 2015. That suggests the space shuttle was 35 times safer than cycling in the UK, which is clearly nonsense. In terms of hours traveled the comparison would be more realistic.

And I mentioned the KSIs per 100 million hours as well. There are also measures of KSI per 100 million trips. It's debatable which is better. For example, people who wish to emphasise the dangers of cycling generally prefer per-km measures, as they make public transport and cars look much safer than cycling, while the per-hour metric make them look fairly similar to cycling.

The other point is that an activity can have a higher relative risk than another activity, and both activities can be safe. Work out for yourself how many years you need to reach the average distance per death (I think it's about 8 or 9 million km for Ireland).

plodder wrote: »

I'd be fairly sceptical about direct comparisons between walking and cycling even when you account for that. Like for example, how many pedestrian accidents are caused partly by impairment due to alcohol? I'd say many more than with cycling.

You'd say, but you haven't mentioned any evidence to back it up.

The RSA have made misleading statements along the lines of "two-thirds of pedestrians who died on the roads had been drinking", but the majority of killed pedestrians were never tested.

In the USA, elevated blood alcohol among cyclists killed in road-traffic collisions has turned up as a notable causative factor in quite a few studies.

plodder wrote: »

I think risk can be reduced dramatically for both cycling and walking. But, for me anyway, there is a bottom line of unavoidable risk, associated with cycling on roads, whereas walking on footpaths in towns/cities can be made close to risk-free, and that's why I always wear a helmet

Have a look at the helmet megathread for the evidence that your last statement has a strong statistical basis. In particular, David Spiegelhalter and Ben Goldacre's BMJ editorial. I won't say any more, since such discussions belong over there.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

(about whom I have mixed feelings, if I'm honest)

Curious to know more about this, as I just found and followed him on Twitter (although his last tweet was in December 2015). He was referenced by your pal from the RDRF.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Curious to know more about this, as I just found and followed him on Twitter (although his last tweet was in December 2015). He was referenced by your pal from the RDRF.

Mostly (probably exclusively, now I think about it) because of some of his writing about climate change. E.g.:
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2014/06/25/global-warming-a-debate-re-visited/

It's quite a post to leave hanging there for three years. His further thoughts never materialised, and he looks as if he doesn't have a problem with the Global Warming Policy Foundation being treated as a scientific institution. I think he's really quite old now, and just not that active anymore, but he's been hinting at this killer evidence up his sleeve for years, and he doesn't have it.

But they are "mixed" feelings. His scepticism is valuable, I think. It's just that at this stage with climate change, asking for more evidence is often just a way of disavowing the vast amount of current evidence.

tomasrojo wrote: »

And I mentioned the KSIs per 100 million hours as well. There are also measures of KSI per 100 million trips. It's debatable which is better. For example, people who wish to emphasise the dangers of cycling generally prefer per-km measures, as they make public transport and cars look much safer than cycling, while the per-hour metric make them look fairly similar to cycling.

Yeah, I wasn't actually contradicting you - just highlighting the difference between the two measures and how misleading they can be, depending on which angle you are coming from.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Tell that to this guy -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2i4C1bG-8w

I'd definitely recommend 'going to the pub' helmets.

I did say 'close to risk free'. The risk isn't zero obviously. The point being, there is a qualitative difference in my opinion, between being on the road with motor vehicles approaching you from behind that you can't see, and being on a segregated footpath, notwithstanding exceptional examples like the video above. We all have our war-stories on the near misses thread. Yet I've never heard of an equivalent for pedestrians.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's quite a post to leave hanging there for three years. His further thoughts never materialised, and he looks as if he doesn't have a problem with the Global Warming Policy Foundation being treated as a scientific institution. I think he's really quite old now, and just not that active anymore, but he's been hinting at this killer evidence up his sleeve for years, and he doesn't have it.

But they are "mixed" feelings. His scepticism is valuable, I think. It's just that at this stage with climate change, asking for more evidence is often just a way of disavowing the vast amount of current evidence.

It's interesting that his agnosticism appears to have been nudged into scepticism essentially out of sympathy with Dr Bengtsson, rather than being prompted by any change in the evidence itself.

Thanks for the clarification.

plodder wrote: »

I did say 'close to risk free'. The risk isn't zero obviously. The point being, there is a qualitative difference in my opinion, between being on the road with motor vehicles approaching you from behind that you can't see, and being on a segregated footpath, notwithstanding exceptional examples like the video above. We all have our war-stories on the near misses thread. Yet I've never heard of an equivalent for pedestrians.

Just look at the death stats - motorists kill about 1 pedestrian each week vs about 1 cyclist each month.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just look at the death stats - motorists kill about 1 pedestrian each week vs about 1 cyclist each month.

Though there's way more pedestrians than cyclists, but that wasn't the point anyway. I was saying it's up to each person to evaluate the risk themselves. Even though I said I always wear a helmet, if I didn't have one with me, it wouldn't stop me cycling. And maybe in some really quiet places, or short journeys, I wouldn't bother anyway.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

It's interesting that his agnosticism appears to have been nudged into scepticism essentially out of sympathy with Dr Bengtsson, rather than being prompted by any change in the evidence itself.

Yeah, it's very different from how he argues every other topic. I guess, judging from the Cato Institute being one of his main outlets, and the general tenor of his opinions, that he strongly leans libertarian. He wouldn't be the first person of that inclination to have a problem with the measures required to address climate change.