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

I think Greenmat's intelligence is being undermined above. I'm sure he has pain receptors to let him know if he's taken a good bash to the head or "gotten away with with it".

Personally, I know of 2 people who had accidents and only for their helmets they are alive - both required work on their faces but there is no question that they would have smashed their skull if they hadn't got a helmet on. Both helmets smashed on impact but that is how they are designed to disperse the force.

I also came off my bike once myself, I was only new to the clips and I got my foot stuck when I had to stop suddenly and ended up smacking the side of my head off the ground. I was able to dust myself off and get back on the bike. Without the helmet I reckon I would have been concussed and needed stitches.

For me, its not a question, as much as I hate wearing a helmet I will always wear one but if people don't want to wear one thats their decision, and it shouldn't be law in my opinion. I do however strongly urge you to consider the feelings of your family and friends though and think how they would feel if you died when it could have been prevented. I always think how my son would feel to grow up without a father because I felt a bit uncomfortable or thought I looked like a bit of a spoon wearing a helmet.

monument wrote:

It seems you don't like information about the Netherlands -- with more cyclists, tiny percentages of helmet use and the lowest serious injury and death rates....

And it seems you don't like taking moderate views into account. I've already stated that I believe there is lots of evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet is completely unnecessary and potentially harmful in some circumstances, I'm simply advocating that people be informed of the information available and left to decide for themselves whether they wish to wear a helmet (I'm a fan of free will). Within that you seem to be concentrating on nothing except the fact that I'm not actually adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home.

You appear to have a large hammer and you view everything as a nail, which is a very self-defeating approach to any form of "debate".

If you hit your head and a helmet cracked it means the force was greater than what the helmet is able to take

Just reading back, in college we had to design a helmet and we had to go into the ISO standards for such. Helmets are designed to crack or break on heavy impact as this is how they disperse the actual force of the impact. The inner lining acts as a buffer between your head and the force so anyone saying that helmets are useless and break too easily, well thats what they are supposed to do!

I do agree that if you have an accident in which your helmet gets broken you should see a doctor.

droidus

doozerie wrote: »

And it seems you don't like taking moderate views into account. I've already stated that I believe there is lots of evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet is completely unnecessary and potentially harmful in some circumstances, I'm simply advocating that people be informed of the information available and left to decide for themselves whether they wish to wear a helmet (I'm a fan of free will). Within that you seem to be concentrating on nothing except the fact that I'm not actually adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home.

You appear to have a large hammer and you view everything as a nail, which is a very self-defeating approach to any form of "debate".

It seems strange to me that you're focussing on the alleged fanaticism of some who question the usefulness of helmets, when we have multiple posts on this thread which constitute explicit moral blackmail ie:

As I say, the decision, as a sentient adult human being, whether or not to wear a basic piece of safety equipment is yours to make, but at least you can't say you weren't warned as to the devastating possible consequences of not doing so.

think how they would feel if you died when it could have been prevented

Along with the standard claim of 'the helmet saved my/his/hers the dogs life'.

There is, as you say 'guilting' going on here, and its clear which side is indulging in it.

droidus wrote: »

It seems strange to me that you're focussing on the alleged fanaticism of some who question the usefulness of helmets,

Huh? "alleged fanaticism" are your words, not mine, so I'm giving them right back to you. Handle them carefully, they are kinda inflammatory when you combine them like that.

And if you'll take a moment to untwist your knickers you'll find that I've taken issue with both extremes of view in this thread, those that claim that helmets are necessary to save your life, and those that claim that an individual wearing a helmet is somehow detrimental to society.

droidus wrote:

There is, as you say 'guilting' going on here, and its clear which side is indulging in it.

Yes indeed, *both* sides. And while those opposing sides swing for each other they are embroiling people with moderate views in their pointless battle and detracting from any useful debate in the process. The majority of us will continue to make up our own minds and could do without being lectured at by either of the views at the extreme ends of the scale.

For those who are debating the effectiveness of a helmet, put a helmet on and get a friend to hit you on the head with a hurley, then take the helmet off and do likewise. If you are in any doubt, I'm sure this simple test will clarify.

droidus

doozerie wrote: »

Huh? "alleged fanaticism" are your words, not mine, so I'm giving them right back to you. Handle them carefully, they are kinda inflammatory when you combine them like that.

And if you'll take a moment to untwist your knickers you'll find that I've taken issue with both extremes of view in this thread, those that claim that helmets are necessary to save your life, and those that claim that an individual wearing a helmet is somehow detrimental to society.

Hmmm... OK, Well, Ive read all of your posts, and whilst most are measured and I agree with the vast majority of your points, Ive only seen you accuse one 'side' as trying to 'guilt' people into a particular viewpoint, and even if that were true, the level of moral blackmail is so egregious on the pro-helmet side it seems, as I said, strange to highlight a far less extreme example (Im not even sure it exists TBH) on the other side.

Yes indeed, *both* sides. And while those opposing sides swing for each other they are embroiling people with moderate views in their pointless battle and detracting from any useful debate in the process. The majority of us will continue to make up our own minds and could do without being lectured at by either of the views at the extreme ends of the scale.

Ah, so this is the 'grey fallacy' I've heard so much about:

An individual demonstrating this false compromise fallacy implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct.

And, btw, apologies if I give the impression Im having a go at you personally, I was just a bit surprised that such a normally even handed poster would start picking so aggressively at a speck in one eye when there's a bloody great beam in the other.

(PS: I dont wear knickers.)

RoboRat wrote: »

For those who are debating the effectiveness of a helmet, put a helmet on and get a friend to hit you on the head with a hurley, then take the helmet off and do likewise. If you are in any doubt, I'm sure this simple test will clarify.

But don't forget to try this little experiment: (1) standing on a pavement, (2) sitting on a bike, and (3) sitting in a car

droidus wrote: »

Ah, so this is the 'grey fallacy' I've heard so much about:

No, not in my view. My personal view is that neither the pro- nor anti- helmet groups have proved their argument. I think that bicycle helmets are one of those things where there is no right or wrong choice, as such, so right now I don't see that there is an argument to win - there are a lot of anecdotes (which I don't value much in this context), quite a few scientific studies (some of them very questionable), and many opinion pieces (some of which are extremely biased), all of which amount to an argument which is not very convincing on either side.

Amongst all of that though there is a lot of useful information which can serve to guide someone as they evaluate whether, for them, a helmet is of any use. And I personally don't feel that I could criticise someone for their choice, whether that is to wear a helmet or not. Discussing the reasons for their decision, and questioning the veracity of some of the information on which they based their decision, is fine in my view, that's where debate comes in. Criticising their choice simply because it differs from mine is what I have a problem with and that approach is adopted by those with extreme views at either end of the scale.

As to the imbalance of numbers between those of the extreme views, yes I think there is an imbalance there. For every person who sees a helmet as some kind of despicable thing I expect there are many many more people who'll argue that a helmet will save your life and will try to back this up with some meaningless anecdote that is supposed to pluck at your heart strings. The latter group tend to be more vocal too so overall they tend to be more annoying and I am more inclined to simply ignore them.

I criticised that latter group in an earlier post when I moaned about the "it's only common sense" argument (an approach that seems to be considered some kind of acceptable face to the "wear a helmet or die" view) but to be honest I have no interest in challenging each of them in turn. To me, theirs is a religious view, they endow the helmet with some sort of miraculous powers that contradicts a lot of the scientific evidence (and, ironically, defies common sense too) and views like that tend to get more entrenched when challenged. But I'd hope that a meaningful debate that they cast an eye over might encourage them to think twice about some of their assumptions. But such a debates gets very quickly undermined when those at the other end of the scale start to argue that you are safer without a helmet - I believe that is actually true in some circumstances but when it is generalised then it becomes a bit of a religious argument in its own right and loses all value as a result.

If I'm targeting the "wear a helmet *and* die" argument at the moment (or what is considered its acceptable/moderate face), then it's because I want the actual debate to continue and not simply grind to a halt while the two side just butt heads. It's not because I consider the extreme anti-helmet argument to be worse than the extreme pro-helmet argument, they are as bad as each other in my view.

RoboRat wrote: »

For those who are debating the effectiveness of a helmet, put a helmet on and get a friend to hit you on the head with a hurley, then take the helmet off and do likewise. If you are in any doubt, I'm sure this simple test will clarify.

Get the friend to hit you on the chin with the hurley while they are at it. As I'm sure this simple test will clarify, everyone actually needs a full face helmet for proper head protection. Now get them to hit you on the elbows, knees, and ankles. See, we all clearly need elbow protectors, knee protectors, and high stout boots. You do wear all of this kit when cycling, right?

And we haven't ventured near the vulnerable fingers (chainmail gloves), the toes (steel toe-capped boots), wrists (wrist supports), eyes (shatterproof glasses), etc., etc., yet. Hmm, maybe it's not so simple after all, maybe there is room for doubt. *confused*

doozerie wrote: »

Get the friend to hit you on the chin with the hurley while they are at it. As I'm sure this simple test will clarify, everyone actually needs a full face helmet for proper head protection. Now get them to hit you on the elbows, knees, and ankles. See, we all clearly need elbow protectors, knee protectors, and high stout boots. You do wear all of this kit when cycling, right?

And we haven't ventured near the vulnerable fingers (chainmail gloves), the toes (steel toe-capped boots), wrists (wrist supports), eyes (shatterproof glasses), etc., etc., yet. Hmm, maybe it's not so simple after all, maybe there is room for doubt. *confused*

Anyone remember there was a lot of focus on "full face helmet guy" a few years ago here?

dub_skav

RoboRat wrote: »

For those who are debating the effectiveness of a helmet, put a helmet on and get a friend to hit you on the head with a hurley, then take the helmet off and do likewise. If you are in any doubt, I'm sure this simple test will clarify.

The fact that you might allow somebody to hit you over the head while wearing a helmet and baulk at the same hit without the helmet is a very good example of risk compensation behaviour.

petethedrummer

dub_skav wrote: »

The fact that you might allow somebody to hit you over the head while wearing a helmet and baulk at the same hit without the helmet is a very good example of risk compensation behaviour.

+1

You could say this a million times to pro-helmeters and they still wouldn't get it.

Unregistered.

doozerie wrote: »

Get the friend to hit you on the chin with the hurley while they are at it. As I'm sure this simple test will clarify, everyone actually needs a full face helmet for proper head protection. Now get them to hit you on the elbows, knees, and ankles. See, we all clearly need elbow protectors, knee protectors, and high stout boots. You do wear all of this kit when cycling, right?

...

*confused*

I'd take a broken jaw, elbow, knee, ankle or anything over a broken skull any day!

Still confused?

Slo_Rida

petethedrummer wrote: »

+1

You could say this a million times to pro-helmeters and they still wouldn't get it.

Cos dey iz dum

Glad I had mine on Saturday anyway...bumped uglies with the road and the helmet saved my skull.

Unregistered. wrote: »

I'd take a broken jaw, elbow, knee, ankle or anything over a broken skull any day!

Still confused?

Yes, I'm still confused, why do you want a broken jaw, elbow, knee, ankle "or anything"?

The fact that you might allow somebody to hit you over the head while wearing a helmet and baulk at the same hit without the helmet is a very good example of risk compensation behaviour.

I don't agree with that assessment. I cycle safely irrespective of whether I have a helmet on or not. I don't see a helmet as some kind of accident prevention device, its there for the unfortunate situations where you have an accident. I really don't think that any cyclist changes their attitude to risk because they have a helmet on.

Get the friend to hit you on the chin with the hurley while they are at it. As I'm sure this simple test will clarify, everyone actually needs a full face helmet for proper head protection. Now get them to hit you on the elbows, knees, and ankles. See, we all clearly need elbow protectors, knee protectors, and high stout boots. You do wear all of this kit when cycling, right?

You could wrap yourself up in cotton wool and never venture out but thats not the point I am getting at.

Looking at it logically, full face protection is not viable as cycling is an activity and you sweat; You also need to drink from your bottle so its just not practical. In regards to having elbow and knee protectors - if you break your elbow or knee its very painful (have done both so I know) but its not life threatening.

Essentially you have to protect the vital organs that are susceptible to the most damage. In this case, due to the general speeds reached by the average cyclist, the head and more importantly the brain needs protection. There are probably plenty of instances whereby a cyclist has come off and done damage to their spine but not sufficient to warrant spine protectors.

I really cant see why anybody would venture out on a bike without a helmet but then again plenty of people have asked why I do MMA! Each to their own I guess.

Lumen

RoboRat wrote: »

Looking at it logically, full face protection is not viable as cycling is an activity and you sweat; You also need to drink from your bottle so its just not practical

Unregistered.

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, I'm still confused, why do you want a broken jaw, elbow, knee, ankle "or anything"?

If I had a preference, I'd take any of those before a fractured skull.

I have no studies to back this up, however in my opinion I think most people would be of the same mindset as myself. Hence why, I think, you don't see people with knee pads, elbow pads, ankle boots etc...

HivemindXX

Unregistered. wrote: »

If I had a preference, I'd take any of those before a fractured skull.

That is not the choice being offered. The choice is between having a broken knee and not having one.

If you choose not to wear knee pads (which appears to be the case) then doesn't this make your entire argument specious?

Unregistered.

HivemindXX wrote: »

That is not the choice being offered. The choice is between having a broken knee and not having one.

If you choose not to wear knee pads (which appears to be the case) then doesn't this make your entire argument specious?

I thought the question was why not wear a protection on other parts of the body? To which I answer: I don't care as much about damaging other parts of my body as I do my skull.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

And it seems you don't like taking moderate views into account. I've already stated that I believe there is lots of evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet is completely unnecessary and potentially harmful in some circumstances, I'm simply advocating that people be informed of the information available and left to decide for themselves whether they wish to wear a helmet (I'm a fan of free will). Within that you seem to be concentrating on nothing except the fact that I'm not actually adopting the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home.

You appear to have a large hammer and you view everything as a nail, which is a very self-defeating approach to any form of "debate".

The problem is you're not a moderate on this regardless how you want to paint your views (I'm not too) -- for one, you're going around accusing people of "peer pressure" when anecdotal evidence on a population level is presented but anecdotal evidence on an individual level is ok...

Can you please explain how one is ok but the other is not?

And who here has adopted the approach of shouting at people to leave their helmets at home?

You've also tried to claim that I had given you advice but so-far you've not being forthcoming on where and when I did that, and droidus has already pointed to other issues with your posts.

doozerie wrote: »

No, not in my view. My personal view is that neither the pro- nor anti- helmet groups have proved their argument. I think that bicycle helmets are one of those things where there is no right or wrong choice, as such, so right now I don't see that there is an argument to win - there are a lot of anecdotes (which I don't value much in this context), quite a few scientific studies (some of them very questionable), and many opinion pieces (some of which are extremely biased), all of which amount to an argument which is not very convincing on either side. ....

For the reasons outline above, I'm not really buying much of this post.

chakattack wrote: »

I think Greenmat's intelligence is being undermined above. I'm sure he has pain receptors to let him know if he's taken a good bash to the head or "gotten away with with it".

I recall at least one if not two threads here in the last year where helmeted cyclists thought they were ok and only got checked out after posters here said to. I knew nothing of Greenmat's background before seen his last post and would not bother posting what I had if I had known.

But if people are going to use their own anecdotal evidence as a tool to advocate helmet use here on boards, then they'll have to get use to being open to questions, disagreement and advice.

monument

RoboRat wrote: »

I really don't think that any cyclist changes their attitude to risk because they have a helmet on.

Research says otherwise: As posted on the last page with a link:

The authors are dismissive of the possibility of risk compensation. However, it has subsequently been demonstrated that child cyclists often ride more riskily and suffer more crashes when wearing a cycle helmet (Mok et al, 2004) and that adults are more likely to ride on busier roads if helmeted (Gregory, Inwood and Sexton, 2003).

Rob A. Bank

Unregistered. wrote: »

I'd take a broken jaw, elbow, knee, ankle or anything over a broken skull any day!

So would I !!

But if the choice was between a fractured skull or diffuse axonal injury... I would take a fractured skull any day.

Uncomplicated skull fractures by themselves are rarely lethal, and are treatable - it is the associated intracranial damage which is lethal.

Rotation & acceleration/deceleration injury are far more damaging to the brain than direct impact against the fixed, immobile head. This is because rotation causes the layers of brain tissue to glide over each other like a pack of cards, causing shearing of the delicate connections between the nerve fibres. Diffuse axonal injury is practically untreatable.

The worry about helmets is that by making the head bigger, they make it more likely that you will hit your head in the first place and that the larger head size may increase the risk of severe brain injuries from increased rotational motion.

monument wrote: »

But if people are going to use their own anecdotal evidence as a tool to advocate helmet use here on boards, then they'll have to get use to being open to questions, disagreement and advice.

Have you seen how Keep her lit took your style of "advice" to its logical conclusion? :cool:

There is an surprising lack of "my helmet caused my brain to rotate" casual stories floating about the boards cycling forum

Hmmm...I wonder.....

dub_skav

chakattack wrote: »

There is an surprising lack of "my helmet caused my brain to rotate" casual stories floating about the boards cycling forum

Hmmm...I wonder.....

Though there are often - glad i had helmet or head would have been smashed, as it was only neck and shoulders hurt. In those cases the sore neck is at issue and "may" not have happened without helmet