Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

here you go Ed...borrow mine.

you guys crack me up. where are the usual "bike radar's thataway", the yawns, the "UTFS"? why should one person get respect for dredging the tired helmet debate up again while another gets ridicule? hypocrites.

it's interesting you've cycled for so long Roxy and yet apparently only just considered the implications you outline here seriously enough to post about them. but you're saying nothing new whatsoever, it's all been covered before with similar points, many many times, in the catch-all thread for this most unresolvable of debates.

if people want to wear helmets they will, if they don't want to they won't. until it's made law of course, which I do hope won't be as a result of some evangelical lfgss members' spearheading a campaign off the back of their recent epiphany, which they then ram down others' throats. that would be so much uncooler than just quietly getting on with wearing a helmet because you personally feel it's safer.

Of course you can't tell they're female, because of the amount of equipment they're wearing, that is my point, you'd notice if it is a female if she's not wearing a helmet and/or let her hair down.

I never assumed that, obviously you shouldn't assumed that every car will give you a wide berth, it's just an interesting study about helmets/nodder usage, it also did make a difference.

Like me with my messenger bag that have "DEAF" written in bold helvetica, it make a difference as vehicle now give me a wider berth, However I don't rely on my bag for my safety, I'll still ride with caution as if I'm not wearing that bag, it's nicer to have more vehicle not passing me with inches to spare.

Do you think drivers actually reckon you are deaf 'cos of that bag, or might they just think it's some hipster fashion label ?

aren't you getting one with "DUMB"

;)

Deaf and dumb? Okay then!

Do you think drivers actually reckon you are deaf 'cos of that bag, or might they just think it's some hipster fashion label ?

who'd think 'deaf' is a fashion label??

Old people, like me possibly. Jsut the white on black lettering I suppose, slightly reminiscent of Def Jam etc.

I think that the older models wre better as zed's one is ace. the kompact seems better too

.

Ok well I don't actually have a whisper but I couldn't find a photo of mine; it has however served me well for the last year or so, and by helmet standards I reckon a
good looking piece of kit.

I just back 'em that's all.

And I guess this debate it just like religion or politics in that I've been raised on the idea that they're good ideas and save lives, so I think it's preposterous that people are saying wearing them is a BAD idea. I just don't get it. How can protecting your head be a BAD idea?

After seeing my mate get totalled by a numpty pedestrian stepping out on him today (ironically whilst walking into work like a wheezing mess due to a chest infection), i'm getting a helmet just so I can headbutt the fuckers if it happens to me.

That's the main reason why I wear mine :)
Mate of mine had ahead on crash in greenwich, and the guy who stepped out had a broken nose, mate was mostly fine due to lid crushing peds nose.
Result!

I ended buying the giro ionos as i the most popular at the track. i hate the look but looks really well made. it is only for the track and we all look shit in lycra anyway :)

Interesting to know this. You are not the first to complain about them. I need to buy a helmet next week for the track as the one I procured from HH is a bit pleby. Have you got yourself a new one yet?

I quite like the look of the Rudy Project ones, but nowhere seems to have the size and colour combo I require

@ shoots, the older models are much better.

Roxy, no, neither Mike nor you are selfish for not wearing a helmet. On the contrary, one could even make the argument stick that you would be selfish for wearing one--with the usual result that if someone is selfish, no-one ultimately benefits, not even the person trying to benefit themselves.

In the top ten things that will make you safer on a bike, hemet use is likely to come in at number 10, You'd be best placed implementing numbers 1-9 first, however if you want to top them off by wearing a helmet "just in case" then good.

However, setting off on your bike believing your helmet makes you safer is a very dangerous mindset to be in.

just my thoughts.

Quite right. The single most annoying thing about h*lm*t propaganda is that it actively reduces people's awareness for doing things that will really make them safer. For instance, I've been told more than once by people that they don't need cycle training because they wear a helmet. I kid you not. There are people who think like that. One of the key tasks in promoting public health is to limit the very small amount of information that people can typically absorb (being busy with lots of other things--it's not for lack of 'intelligence') to what is really most effective and helmets, as winston says, aren't anywhere near the top of that list. I wouldn't even say that they're as high as at number 10.

Friend of the Mrs started cycling the other day- her boyfriend had bought her a helmet, multi-tool, pump and puncture repair kit as a gift for starting.

Her indoors bought the new cyclist a pair of gloves saying "the people on Neil's forum don't often wear helmets but they all wear gloves", which is common sense as you are very likely to trash your hands in most spills without them.

She is completely right. That point has also often been made in connection with helmets. Not only that, but many doctors also think that wearing a helmet and no gloves is likely to interfere with the reflex that one would otherwise have in trying to support oneself with one's hands in the event of a fall.

If the discussion is to be about the selfishness of riding in a way that puts you at more risk then you could say it's just as selfish to ride with a worn chain, or cleats, or brake blocks, or even skidded through tyres. You could just as easily have a blowout as you approach a junction that can cause you to lose control and end up under a bus...i've pulled my foot out of my pedals due to worn cleats as i approached a junction...had i not been a competent cyclist i could have been hit full on.
Riding without bartape can be more dangerous in the wet, or without bar plugs...i see people doing both of those things even when they're wearing helmets.
While we're on the subject...is it selfish for people to ride bikes at all in a busy city that are clearly not competent yet?
I see people all the time wobbling about all over the road like an accident just waiting to happen, usually wearing helmets, putting other road users in danger...are they being selfish by not taking a cycling proficiency test at the age of 35 due to thinking they're too old to need to?

There are so many things that can be seen as selfish...is a parent selfish for doing a charity parachute jump to raise money for the local hospice, knowing that there is a chance the chute might not open?

If we all went through life trying to prepare for every possible outcome of every risky situation we'd leave the house dressed in a suit of armour and wearing a full face helmet.
Make up your own mind.

Scott's point is also extremely important. Quite apart from it crowding out of their mind other important things that people should do for their cycling, people also use helmets for the kind of risk compensation that Scott describes. Everyone should read John Adams on this. Here's a sample paper (there are books and other papers, but I like to quote this one):

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/Do%20we%20have%20enough%20injidents.pdf

It cannot be stressed enough that cycling is a low-risk activity even if it is riskier than walking. It is distressing that people have so much fear put into them through emotional manipulation that they fear undertaking a perfectly normal, everyday activity.

An additional point about risk--I can't remember if it is made in this particular paper by John Adams--is that it is actually a good thing for children to have small 'accidents' that don't leave them with permanent injury, because they enable them to learn how to gauge risk better and will most likely prepare them better for a time when they'll be in a position to potentially do serious harm to themselves through the activities they undertake. It is thought that if such small incidents don't act as cautionary buffers, that the risk of much more serious incidents is increased.

Some Oliver bait- what harm can wearing a helmet do?

Not in the sense of enforced helmet wearing as in Australia with the concomitant drop in bicycle usage.

I take Tricity's point about cars giving less room to cyclists wearing a helmet on board also.

My initial question also assumes that the helmet is worn correctly- not as VV says like a beret.

EDIT: I am perfectly willing to admit that when I hit the deck this year the helmet that I was wearing did nothing.

Now to Neil's point--I've already made the most important points about some of the potentially negative effects of helmet-wearing above. I'm not sure I can get a definitive list together, or even a half-complete list, as after all this has been written about millions of times. And some of the other points have already been made by people in this thread.

(1) HW creates a false perception that cycling is a high-risk activity.

(2) HW creates a false perception that cycling is a 'strange' activity that requires specialist clothing that looks unattractive and is something only for highly athletic people to pursue in their leisure time.

(Both of these are known deterrents to cycling.)

(3) The higher helmet-wearing rates get, the greater the willingness of Government to introduce helmet compulsion like in Australia. (Government officials have consistently said that they are watching helmet wearing rates and are willing to act once they reach a certain level. I wish I could just blithely say 'it should all be personal choice', but I can't, as that personal choice is mostly fed by false information, and because it is likely to fuel a similarly ill-informed public health intervention as in Australia.) Hence, by wearing a helmet today you risk helping to precipitate compulsion in due course.

(4) HW is fuelled by false information about it. By wearing a helmet on the grounds that are typically given in favour, you help propagate false information. Take as an example the claim often made that head injuries are highly prevalent among cyclists. They are not.

(5) There is plenty of evidence that HW makes people take more risks, and that it can make them take more risks than they can handle. It can make them feel safer and less prepared for a fall or a crash.

(6) There are many very well-meaning people promoting helmets, but their approach to public health promotion focuses far too much on the comparatively rare failures than the successes. How often do you hear about the billions of bike trips undertaken every day and have them compared to several thousands of falls and crashes? Have a look at the CTC's 'Safety in Numbers' campaign, for instance. The result of all the scaremongering is that cycling is presented to many people as something profoundly negative to do. Personally, I never would react to this in that way, and many other people wouldn't, but you will get people come up to you and stress only the negative. I do LCC stalls quite often and I've spoken to thousands of people over the years. There tend to be three types of people who feel this negativity--those who cycle but beat themselves up over it all the time, in some cases almost hating themselves for cycling, secondly those who were scared off cycling in their youth and often feel the need to compensate by telling themselves over and over how bad cycling is, and thirdly people who have never cycled for the same reason and sincerely believe that it is dangerous and best to be avoided (we have a whole lost generation in this country who think like this). Most of the people who roughly fall into these categories will promote helmet-wearing.

[Ramon mode]I'm not going to go into the politics behind this all, but suffice to say that there are particular pro-helmet agendas that are actually not concerned about your, or anyone else's, health at all.[/Ramon mode]

Roxy, helmet propaganda often emotionalises the issue, because promoters know that it is very difficult for people to look at the full facts, and that it is easier to mislead people when they're afraid. At the end of the day, some of those facts will be derived from complex scientific studies that it takes several degrees to follow. Looked at in the cold hard light of the available evidence, there are some circumstances when wearing a helmet might be marginally beneficial (being mikec springs to mind), but that the disbenefits outweigh any possible benefits.

I hope that the information above comes across as reasonably commonsensical. I've deliberately avoided figures as I've been in too many helmet debates to find it very useful to keep repeating those (e.g., the difference in passing distances between helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists from Ian Walker's study). It is one of those issues on which people are split and will remain so for some good time. Nothing we write here is going to change this, as it is ultimately to do with the approach we take to life. I personally would feel less comfortable with a partner wearing a helmet than with her not wearing one, and the same would apply to my children.

Anyway, there would be many more points to make, but they're all over the Internet for those who are interested in getting into it in depth. But no, neither Mike nor you are selfish in this at all, and I really hope that people won't try to give you that feeling.

who'd think 'deaf' is a fashion label??

You're sitting on a potential goldmine there, Ed. ;)

(coz' clapton is the new surebitch)

Clapton FTW!

Well, lets just wait 'til Oliver shows up.

yeah, oliver will layup the smackdown.

Hope you lot are happy now.

I think that I'm going to go buy a helmet now

Fantastic, I'll be able to sleep tonight over the thought that the next time I go for a pootle in my death-causing vehicle that you'll be safe from either myself or one of my brethrens

Weirdly on the gloves thing, I hate them, I can't understand how people wear them I hate the feel of the bars through gloves, I only wear them on the coldest of winter days so I can still move my fingers, even then I resent the fact that I have to wear them.
I would rather shred the skin on my hands to shit (which it would take a pretty gnarly fall to do so), my hands are pretty tough and heavily calloused/not very pretty so its no big deal, i've done it plenty of times, years of crashing constantly on my bmx and lifting weights without those gloves that the wimps use have toughened them up :)
I will be wearing a helmet now though, something i've been thinking about for a while, I used to wear one when I bmxed to, despite it being "cool" not to.

When I wanted to get an helmet I was told I was fearmonging.

, my hands are pretty tough and heavily calloused/not very pretty so its no big deal, i've done it plenty of times, years of crashing constantly on my bmx and lifting weights without those gloves that the wimps use have toughened them up :)
I will be wearing a helmet now though,

I don't think they make helmets big enough.

Weirdly on the gloves thing, I hate them, I can't understand how people wear them I hate the feel of the bars through gloves, I only wear them on the coldest of winter days so I can still move my fingers, even then I resent the fact that I have to wear them.
I would rather shred the skin on my hands to shit (which it would take a pretty gnarly fall to do so), my hands are pretty tough and heavily calloused/not very pretty so its no big deal, i've done it plenty of times, years of crashing constantly on my bmx and lifting weights without those gloves that the wimps use have toughened them up :)
I will be wearing a helmet now though, something i've been thinking about for a while, I used to wear one when I bmxed to, despite it being "cool" not to.

You're not a long-distance cyclist, James. We've discussed this before. ;)

I don't think they make helmets big enough.

If he gets one made for turbans it might be ok.

Weirdly on the gloves thing, I hate them, I can't understand how people wear them I hate the feel of the bars through gloves, I only wear them on the coldest of winter days so I can still move my fingers, even then I resent the fact that I have to wear them.
I would rather shred the skin on my hands to shit (which it would take a pretty gnarly fall to do so), my hands are pretty tough and heavily calloused/not very pretty so its no big deal, i've done it plenty of times, years of crashing constantly on my bmx and lifting weights without those gloves that the wimps use have toughened them up :)
I will be wearing a helmet now though, something i've been thinking about for a while, I used to wear one when I bmxed to, despite it being "cool" not to.

I thought that, but now I rarely ride without gloves on. Fingerless ones though

I'm totally pro-eye protection. Let's have a debate. Or not.

I want to protect your eyes too, for if I was to never feel your gaze upon me again, I may as well die.

If he gets one made for turbans it might be ok.

this one maybe?
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/06/28_05_2004_0716_2.jpg

you need little eye jackets for the winter.

Oliver.. V good post!

I'm totally pro-eye protection. Let's have a debate. Or not.