nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Felloffmebike

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I'm interested in a lot of recent comments about wearing or not wearing a helmet. It never occurred to me not to wear one but recently I'm picking up a lot of people who seem to have a different view. Why is that? Does wearing a helmet not make it safer if you fall, even a little bit? And those who advocate not wearing one, is it a safety thing or a style thing or a macho man thing or what? Or is there some evidence that a helmet doesnt actually give you any protection or even that wearing one could be dangerous in itself.

I'm not looking to start an argument, just interested in the different views.

Mod note

Title changed - this can hopefully be considered the definitive helmet thread that can be pointed to whenever anyone wants to start another discussion on the subject - I'll put a link from the FAQs to it also

Find more posts tagged with

cycling

safety

myths

helmet

helmets

henry marsh

Quick Links

Comments

tomasrojo

ABI have been doing this sort of thing for years. They have no interest in a nuanced debate.

As for the notion that thousands are risking brain injury, one thing we do know is that increasing the numbers of cyclists wearing helmets in a jurisdiction never seems to drive down the serious head injury rate. The total numbers of head injuries usually decline, but it matches or even falls short of the reduction in numbers cycling after compulsion, or a hard-core promotional campaign.

They may well make a difference at the individual level, but they must be "causing" roughly as many injuries as they're preventing.

tomasrojo

It's a bit of a moot point anyway, as even helmet compulsionists now seem to concede that cycling is very good for you. It's completely perverse to punish people for doing something that's good for them and good for society(*), just because they won't do it your way.

EDIT(*): and carries about the same risk of head injury as walking. The Dublin Bike scheme provides pretty good evidence that cycling, in an urban context at least, doesn't carry a huge amount of risk.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

ABI have been doing this sort of thing for years. They have no interest in a nuanced debate.

As a side point, I have to say I just think it is a cheap, no thinking publicity stunt from them. It doesn't require proof as most people think it sounds plausible enough (and it does), doesn't require the majority of people who listen to change their own habits (as presumably the non helmet wearing listeners are a very small subset of the general population). Those who disagree are shot down as being unsafe. They have a doctor and much like my mother in law, having any sort of Dr. be it medical or PhD means you are the voice to be listened to in the room, regardless of your actual knowledge in the area, as the spokesperson.

Most of the counter points are simply shot down without merit because they anecdotes trump analysis in emotive arguments.

The doctor wants something positive to say at the next AGM, this provides that, she is active, committed and out there and very few people would question here because most people have made up their minds (or decided their minds are too much at risk from cycling).

Cabaal

Lets hope some party doesn't get the bright idea to try bring in helmets as law, it'll spell the end of Dublin Bikes and Bleeper bikes.

magicbastarder

wasn't it FF who raised the idea of compulsory hi-vis for pedestrians?

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

wasn't it FF who raised the idea of compulsory hi-vis for pedestrians?

Yep, although someone pointed it out at the time that it may have been an attempt to delay or stop the overall legislation. Not sure how true that was.

[Deleted User]

Irish Gunner wrote: »

Car hit me from the left (driver not looking) I went over the bonnet and fell down on my left side so helmet saved my head. Bell helmet now in the bin. Have it a while so probably should have replaced it earlier (no hits before this)
Reading up given me more knowledge

ouch. That for me sums up nicely why I wear a helmet. You can take all the precautions in the world, but unfortunately, the roads are full of idiots who are determined to kill you.

Chips Lovell

magicbastarder wrote: »

wasn't it FF who raised the idea of compulsory hi-vis for pedestrians?

The legislation in question is the Road Traffic Amendment Bill 2017. The main purpose of the Bill was to amend the Road Traffic Act to toughen drink driving penalities by providing for "for automatic disqualification from driving in the case of a person paying a fixed charge in respect of a drink driving offence".

Deputy Troy wanted to amend the bill to make it mandatory to wear high visibility or reflective gear by people who walked on unlit rural roads.

I'm sure Deputy Troy in no way intended to delay or disrupt the passing of the bill and that the safety of pedestrians was his sole motivation for introducing the amendment.

flatty

Irish Gunner wrote: »

Ok was in an accident and the Bell helmet that served me well is now out in the bin with a crack

I was looking for a helmet with a light on it and saw the below in Lidl

https://www.lidl.ie/en/special-offers.htm?articleId=11192

Are there others out there similar that I can consider? Its just for a 30 minute commute there and back to work so just using for that so take it all the safety regulations are ok with this

Any other suggestions as going to bike shop today

They are all just polystyrene, but they seem to make wearers better people, the more expensive the even betterer the wearer. I was asked by another cyclist recently in a hectoring tone why I wasn't wearing one. Strange behaviour.

Ray Bloody Purchase

magicbastarder wrote: »

wasn't it FF who raised the idea of compulsory hi-vis for pedestrians?

wat

So if you walk outside the fookin door, you've to don a flamin' hi-vis vest???

[Deleted User]

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

wat

So if you walk outside the fookin door, you've to don a flamin' hi-vis vest???

I can see the queue at Copper Faced jacks.

All in their high heels, micro skirts, boob tubes and hi viz jackets

Irish Gunner

flatty wrote: »

They are all just polystyrene, but they seem to make wearers better people, the more expensive the even betterer the wearer. I was asked by another cyclist recently in a hectoring tone why I wasn't wearing one. Strange behaviour.

Picked up helmet in Lidl up and seems fine I don't care what I look like in it

Order a Mips helmet from Wiggle and got £10 off so happy enough with that, cheaper if pay in Stg and using Parcel Motel

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/giro-foray-road-helmet-mips/

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

(as presumably the non helmet wearing listeners are a very small subset of the general population)

Do you mean that most of the listeners aren't cyclists and even those who are probably wear helmets?

I can't listen to these "debates", as they're just too depressing, but there still are plenty of helmet-less cyclists around, though it depends where you are and what time of day it is. I guess ABI think there are still quite a few, as that's what they keep saying.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Do you mean that most of the listeners aren't cyclists and even those who are probably wear helmets?

well, in a facile sense, the number of listeners who are actually cycling when listening could be counted in the single figures.
though they'll probably have a segment soon to browbeat that segment of the audience.

doozerie

This article is moderately interesting as it talks about a new approach to MIPS: https://www.velonews.com/2018/08/bikes-and-tech/finding-a-solution-to-the-bike-helmet-paradox_474141

Note that it is sponsored content though, so they get to say what they like to a certain extent, for example:

It’s an accepted fact that wearing a helmet can greatly reduce the chance of suffering a traumatic brain injury if you happen to crash or be involved in an accident.

...which is about as valid as saying "It's an accepted fact that having access to a life jacket on a plan can greatly reduce the chance of drowning if the plane crashes", the many qualifications being implied rather than stated.

tomasrojo

It's quite a distance from that statement, even with the implied qualifiers, and the BMJ editorial of a few years back:

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

It's pretty good summing up of the stasis this argument seems to have wound up in.

doozerie

I was being a bit facetious but their combination of the phrase "an accepted fact" with basically a very wishy washy phrase that amounts to "might help protect against injury" grates.

I don't doubt that in certain types of falls/collisions a helmet can help, but their phrasing very effectively plays down the uncertainty. They do their marketing well.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

...which is about as valid as saying "It's an accepted fact that having access to a life jacket on a plan can greatly reduce the chance of drowning if the plane crashes", the many qualifications being implied rather than stated.

It is accepted fact, is a scientific way of saying I can't find a reference but I am pretty sure, even though there is probably no proof whatsoever.

doozerie

CramCycle wrote: »

It is accepted fact, is a scientific way of saying I can't find a reference but I am pretty sure, even though there is probably no proof whatsoever.

So "it is an accepted fact that..." is the scientific equivalent of "I feel it in my waters that..."

Idleater

doozerie wrote: »

So "it is an accepted fact that..." is the scientific equivalent of "I feel it in my waters that..."

Or the "It was decided ...." at a meeting no one with any potential contrary opinion was invited to.

CramCycle

A more definitive list:
https://jcdverha.home.xs4all.nl/scijokes/8_2.html#subindex

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

A more definitive list:
https://jcdverha.home.xs4all.nl/scijokes/8_2.html#subindex

That's pretty accurate!

I seem to remember journals telling people to stop writing "Additional work is required"

BrianHenryIE

A kid in Sacramento was hit by a police car after he was stopped for having no lights on his bike and then ran. Obviously the kid was black.

This is one reason people push back against so-called “safety laws” like helmet laws—they can become an excuse for cops to pull over people that just want to be able to move about their neighborhoods with the same freedom expected by people who are not subject to profiling.

StreetsBlog Cal: Sacramento Police Video: This Was No Safety Stop

flatty

doozerie wrote: »

This article is moderately interesting as it talks about a new approach to MIPS: https://www.velonews.com/2018/08/bikes-and-tech/finding-a-solution-to-the-bike-helmet-paradox_474141

Note that it is sponsored content though, so they get to say what they like to a certain extent, for example:

It’s an accepted fact that wearing a helmet can greatly reduce the chance of suffering a traumatic brain injury if you happen to crash or be involved in an accident.

...which is about as valid as saying "It's an accepted fact that having access to a life jacket on a plan can greatly reduce the chance of drowning if the plane crashes", the many qualifications being implied rather than stated.

It's not an accepted fact either.

Eamonnator

brian.henry wrote: »

A kid in Sacramento was hit by a police car after he was stopped for having no lights on his bike and then ran. Obviously the kid was black.

StreetsBlog Cal: Sacramento Police Video: This Was No Safety Stop

I read through the article. The kid was white.

BrianHenryIE

Eamonnator wrote: »

I read through the article. The kid was white.

Oops. I read it a few days ago! In fact, I saw another video of the kid today. I don't know how I made that mistake.

buffalo

Eamonnator wrote: »

I read through the article. The kid was white.

It's an accepted fact that the kid was black.

[Deleted User]

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The legislation in question is the Road Traffic Amendment Bill 2017. The main purpose of the Bill was to amend the Road Traffic Act to toughen drink driving penalities by providing for "for automatic disqualification from driving in the case of a person paying a fixed charge in respect of a drink driving offence".

Deputy Troy wanted to amend the bill to make it mandatory to wear high visibility or reflective gear by people who walked on unlit rural roads.

I'm sure Deputy Troy in no way intended to delay or disrupt the passing of the bill and that the safety of pedestrians was his sole motivation for introducing the amendment.

Presumably, this must have been a different Deputy Robert Troy given the fairly cavalier attitude to road safety demonstrated.

Melodeon wrote: »

There's going to be a cycling helmet item on the Pat Kenny show on Newstalk today.
The promo doesn't sound promising, and Jonathon Healy is hosting...

Jonathon took serious offence at being challenged on Twitter by Cian Ginty and many others about his 'mandatory helmets' nonsense.

tomasrojo

Yeah, I saw a bit of the presenter responding on Twitter. It mostly was "You do know this person from ABI is an actual doctor?"

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I saw a bit of the presenter responding on Twitter. It mostly was "You do know this person from ABI is an actual doctor?"

I do wonder do some people not realise that being a doctor does not make you an expert in all fields, and certainly does not absolve you of being questioned on your opinion. Someone in Johnathan's position should really know this as it would be a basic principle of any interviewer.