If you always wear a helmet cycling, why not in a car?

monument · 10-10-2012 11:47AM #1

Firstly: This is not a general helmet thread, nor is it an attempt to open a can of worms, or even to change people's minds -- I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater. Anyway, the question is:

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

Do you think cycling is very / notably dangerous generally? If so, why?

Before answering please consider that:

Studies show that people in cars -- even with safety belts and airbags etc -- would benfit from helmets more than cyclists.

In Ireland, people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists.* People in cars can also wear heavier helmets which are unsuited to cycling.

In Ireland overall people on foot who suffer brain injuries get hit by motorists at greater speeds than cyclists who suffer brain injuries.*

* Source: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

el tel · 10-10-2012 11:54AM

You are assuming that no one wears a helmet driving their car or while walking.

Lusk Doyle · 10-10-2012 11:55AM

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

Lumen · 10-10-2012 11:56AM

monument wrote: »

I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater

That's not really true though, is it?

I mean, statistically it might be true, but it doesn't reflect the individual cases.

For instance, it is almost impossible to accidentally kill yourself in a modern car whilst commuting to work in a city. You could possibly do it by deliberately driving into oncoming traffic, but even then you'd probably escape with crush injuries and some short term head injuries.

Whereas on a bike you just need to fall off the wrong way and it could be lights out (there are examples of this but I don't want to discuss them).

In a car the main risks are surely from a high speed accident, e.g. hitting oncoming car on a national road or getting t-boned by an artic on the motorway. No one wants to think about those, because if you did you'd never get in a car.

07Lapierre · 10-10-2012 12:00PM

Because You don't need a helmet when driving a car

Car crash at Motorway speed

smacl · 10-10-2012 12:06PM

Lumen wrote: »

In a car the main risks are surely from a high speed accident, e.g. hitting oncoming car on a national road or getting t-boned by an artic on the motorway. No one wants to think about those, because if you did you'd never get in a car.

Agreed aggressive and/or reckless driving at 10kph in a congested area is altogether safer than the same thing at speed on the open roads.

I also seem to hear about a large number of fatal accidents on the Sunday morning news, where no other driver was involved, and the accident happened some time after pub closing hours. Maybe wearing a helmet while drunk, or even not driving while drunk, would be another option worth considering.

Lusk Doyle · 10-10-2012 12:07PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Because You don't need a helmet when driving a car

Car crash at Motorway speed

:eek:

nightb4 · 10-10-2012 12:10PM

If you're on your own in the car, wearing your seatbelt and the airbag works what is your head going to hit? A car hitting you into the driverside door hard enough to make your head hit the window is a fairly rare crash I would have thought.
In other crashes your brain might rattle around in your head but a helmet won't help you there.

Jawgap · 10-10-2012 12:10PM

Australia tried motoring helmets....

Motoring+Helmet+014.jpg

buffalo · 10-10-2012 12:22PM

nightb4 wrote: »

If you're on your own in the car, wearing your seatbelt and the airbag works what is your head going to hit? A car hitting you into the driverside door hard enough to make your head hit the window is a fairly rare crash I would have thought.
In other crashes your brain might rattle around in your head but a helmet won't help you there.

Perhaps more pertinent to ask is, what is going to hit your head? Any amount of shrapnel, blunt objects, and (according to one road safety ad) the passenger in the back not wearing a seatbelt.

kennyb3 · 10-10-2012 12:44PM

My helmet matches my bike not my car- simple really.

RidleyRider · 10-10-2012 12:52PM

When we were tt-ing some dude arrived in his car always with his helmet on, got out and walked around with it on, and amazingly wore it doing the course. Whats your point?

ROK ON · 10-10-2012 01:06PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

You're in the wrong forum, this about sports cycling - only joking Mknument.

Honest answer to your valid question, is that I cannot cycle with my club or do any event (race or sportif) without wearing one. Simple as that.

If I am going for a casual short cycle I don't wear one generally.
I don't make my daughter wear one while cycling her bike.

I don't wear one in a car because I am not forced to. Simple as that.

I don't think of the safety aspect of helmets truth be told - it is compliance with codes of conduct where they apply.

smacl · 10-10-2012 01:24PM

monument wrote: »

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

Do you think cycling is very / notably dangerous generally? If so, why?

Before answering please consider that:

Studies show that people in cars -- even with safety belts and airbags etc -- would benfit from helmets more than cyclists.

In Ireland, people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists.* People in cars can also wear heavier helmets which are unsuited to cycling.

In Ireland overall people on foot who suffer brain injuries get hit by motorists at greater speeds than cyclists who suffer brain injuries.*

* Source: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Ok. I'll bite, and note this is based entirely on your referenced document;

Helmets while driving:

A brief scan of the linked report shows that 49% of drivers sustaining injury were definitely not wearing their seat belts, and it was unknown as to whether another 16% were. So rather than advocating helmet use while driving, perhaps suggesting wearing the seat belt provided. As per my previous post, alcohol also remains a more important factor, though not among cyclists;

At least a quarter of all patients involved in motor vehicle collisions were reported to have consumed alcohol before the collision and its involvement was poorly recorded for another 63% of patients and therefore termed unknown (Table 6.12). When the patient’s position in the car was considered, then 35 of the 150 drivers injured had used alcohol. Pedal cyclists were the least likely road user to have consumed alcohol.

Helmets while cycling:

The non-wearing of helmets was frequent and noted for one in five NAS and NSU cyclists and motorcyclists (Table 6.14). In the NSU, 15 out of 29 (52%) pedal cyclists and 6 out of 18 motor-cyclists (33%) were reported to be without a helmet. Nine of the 10 motorcyclists without a helmet had a GCS <9 (a severe injury) but no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists.

To me this appears like the experts on the traumatic brain injury side of things are to keen draw a correlation between traumatic brain injury resulting from a cycling accident, and non-wearing of a helmet. While I'm often not sure why I wear a helmet (other than to placate my better half), this type of correlation re-enforces the notion that it may be just of occasional benefit.

That said, I don't see how this study relates in any way to the efficacy or not of helmets, or the dangers involved in cycling, as it does not include any cyclist population numbers, or number of hours spent in the saddle on the roads. You can't establish any relationship without this.

It also baffles me why those, such as yourself, who are keen to paint a happy smiley picture of cycling, continue to wave around reports on the rare yet gruesome injuries that cyclists and other road users might fall victim to. At a glance, what you see is yet another boards helmet thread about how and when people get maimed while cycling. Counter-productive, no?

jimmycrackcorm · 10-10-2012 01:43PM

Seatbelt and airbags offer some degree of good protection as an alternative to helmets. I saw from a TV documentary that in a serious crash, it's the force of the impact that causes a lot of the damage.

irishmotorist · 10-10-2012 01:45PM

monument wrote: »

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

My reason is that I believe it offers me protection should an unexpected incident happen. I would consider that the most likely unexpected things to happen me when cycling are the likes of me taking a corner too fast and slipping (as happened once before), a pedestrian stepping off the path in front of me or a car making contact me in some way as a result of the driver not seeing me. I think my head is a particularly valuable part of my body and wearing a typical cycling helmet offers a degree of protection while not making the activity dislikeable.

I don't wear one in a car because there are plenty of safety features built in to protect me and my head - seatbelts, air bags and the general construction of the shell.

I don't wear one when walking because I don't think there is a high likelihood of me slipping/falling and injuring my head. Things happen faster on a bike so, IMO, in the case of identical incidents happening to a person walking and a person cycling, the person walking will have a much better chance of reacting and avoiding the incident.

BTW, I don't think cycling is dangerous, but as with everything I try to take what I believe to be sensible precautions.

marketty · 10-10-2012 01:47PM

I have yet to forget to unclip from the pedals and topple over at the lights while in the car

Lumen · 10-10-2012 01:50PM

marketty wrote: »

I have yet to forget to unclip from the pedals and topple over at the lights while in the car

The motoring equivalent is forgetting to put the handbrake on.

I've done it twice that I remember. Both times I had to chase the car down the street and jump in. One time I made it, the other time the car made contact with a stationary object but didn't cause any damage.

Lusk Doyle · 10-10-2012 01:51PM

Lumen wrote: »

The motoring equivalent is forgetting to put the handbrake on.

I've done it twice that I remember. Both times I had to chase the car down the street and jump in. One time I made it, the other time the car made contact with a stationary object but didn't cause any damage.

Well you are obviously special.

el tel · 10-10-2012 02:02PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Well you are obviously special.

Special? Like helmets on the bus?

Lusk Doyle · 10-10-2012 02:11PM

el tel wrote: »

Special? Like helmets on the bus?

More like with pillows around him in the bed to stop him rolling off onto the floor :pac:

(the floor being where his helmet is left :rolleyes:)

doozerie · 10-10-2012 03:39PM

Lumen wrote: »

The motoring equivalent is forgetting to put the handbrake on.

I've done it twice that I remember. Both times I had to chase the car down the street and jump in. One time I made it, the other time the car made contact with a stationary object but didn't cause any damage.

The RSA just rang. They say that what you need is a pair of go-faster shoes - big clunky ones that are woefully expensive and that'll you trip you up quite often, but on those occasions where you need to chase after your errant car they might get you there faster, possibly. They're so chuffed with their idea that they're considering making them compulsory for all car drivers.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 10-10-2012 03:47PM

Can I reply that it's a stupid question that doesn't warrant an answer and would be more appropriately placed in the After Hours forum???

monument · 10-10-2012 04:16PM

Thanks for the replies.... Will reply to others later, only have time for two quick ones right now.,.

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

Both questions are more about cycling than motoring, and the main question is about walking as much as car use.

CJC999 wrote: »

Can I reply that it's a stupid question that doesn't warrant an answer and would be more appropriately placed in the After Hours forum???

You can. But:

Can you please explain why it's a stupid question?

Lusk Doyle · 10-10-2012 04:21PM

monument wrote: »

Both questions are more about cycling than motoring, and the main question is about walking as much as car use.

Actually, your first question is about walking and driving and not cycling:

"If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?"

blatantrereg · 10-10-2012 04:23PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Because You don't need a helmet when driving a car

Car crash at Motorway speed

That's 120mph in the video; not 120kmph (75mph)... Still awesome though

CardinalJ · 10-10-2012 04:39PM

All these pro/anti helmet threads are a bit tiring.

Flandria · 10-10-2012 04:41PM

If I wear a pink Brooklyn cap on a bike does that mean I have to wear one in a car now? Me confused...

Fighting Irish · 10-10-2012 04:46PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

If he gets no replies, then it's obviously the wrong forum, but he's getting replies so...

buffalo · 10-10-2012 04:47PM

CJC999 wrote: »

Can I reply that it's a stupid question that doesn't warrant an answer and would be more appropriately placed in the After Hours forum???

Actually, I think I'd enjoy seeing the responses to this in AH.

doozerie · 10-10-2012 04:48PM

@monument, I think that the retort of "why don't you wear a helmet while driving" is a reasonable one in the context of a discussion where someone is blindly advocating the supposed merits of helmets for cyclists as it might encourage them to look at their own argument in a different light, but in any other context it doesn't make a lot of sense. Just as with any other form of transport, the dangers posed by a collision in/with a car are best dealt with by addressing the behaviour of the person in control of the car, and helmets, extra air bags, etc., are all secondary.

Despite that, people will continue to drink and drive, use their mobile phone while driving, read stuff while driving, drive without working lights, etc., etc. I think the fundamental reason behind a lot of those behaviours is lazy self-delusion - people casually adopt an elevated sense of their skills as a driver so believe they can do almost anything they like without compromising the safety of themselves and others. That same self-delusion applies to their perception of their own safety too, so people can, for example, watch someone walk a tightrope to which they are securely fastened and marvel at the tightrope walker's willingness to seemingly take great risks, while merrily throwing their own car at speed into blind bends without a care or second-thought in the world. The unfortunate thing is that the relatively low number of incidents (compared to the level of careless or dangerous driving that I see anway) panders to peoples' delusions and reinforces them - they believe that they are safe, and that accidents are what happen to other people. People are very reluctant to confront their own mortality and its relative fragility. The same holds for cyclists, obviously, but bicycle helmets are aready a social norm, of sorts, and for many people it is simply easier to go along with the idea that a helmet will keep you safer rather than question it (yes, us cyclists are lazy too!).

So you can try again and again to impress on drivers that they and those around them would be safer if they slowed down, had their car serviced regularly, showed more patience, wore a helmet, etc., but many people seem to lack a willingness to try to even understand the dangers/risks, whatever about addressing them. Question many drivers on any of those things and they are likely not to listen, starting with the question of why they don't choose to wear a helmet is an approach perhaps most likely to result in you being dismissed out of hand as some kind of lunatic and no amount of stats will change that.

If you always wear a helmet cycling, why not in a car?

Comments