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

You get my point.

Are you in sales?

[/Trollmode]

You get my point.

not really - on one hand you offer unsabstantiated 'evidence' for the fact that your snowboard helmet definitely saved you from serious injury but on the other you doubt the efficacy of cycle helmets cos you don't think it looks right when you see them professionals riding on the tellybox

:^]

I believe road helmet standards would benefit from a rethink.

(P.S. I'm not that young)

Yesterdays tragedy could neither have been foreseen or avoided.

Actually, it could be both foreseen and avoided, but anybody who took the time to properly foresee it would have concluded that the cost of avoiding it (stopping all cycle racing, in effect) was much higher than the benefit, evaluated before the occurrence as (probability that it would happen x severity of outcome)

I believe ordinata's thinking on helmets would benefit from a rethink.

Out of interest, do you wear a full face helmet for all your riding? Or are you a needless troll?

Like you, the latter. I believe.

This whole debate seems quite similar to that about the HANS device debate.

Forgive me from editing but I have cut your post down to 3 basic points...

No worries, but please permit me only a very brief reply, as I'm pretty tired of helmet debates. :)

(1) What has this got to do with helmets? Helmets do not prevent accidents, the cause of the accident is irrelevant to the debate. The issue is whether (once you have crashed) the helmet does any good.

You'd be surprised how many people believe that helmets prevent crashes.

(2) I am perfectly prepared to believe that they are only really effective at low speeds, and I am perfectly prepared to believe that they are next to useless at 'pro rider descent speeds'. I am not prepare to believe that there are not numerous accidents a levels between these two speeds where the use of a helmet has a beneficial impact on the outcome, not least when the impact is not full force into a stationary object, rather it is the rider glancing the surface of the road with their head as their primary movement is horizontal not vertical.
There is a lot of research on this, which is impossible to summarise and often contradictory. It is a very immature branch of science. The one thing that is very clear is the epidemiological data.

(3) It depends what we are talking about. If we are talking about 'normal' cycling then you are probably right - it is essential that when going down a mountain you prioritise going at considerably slower than pro descent speeds as opposed to wearing a helmet. If you are talking about pro riders then the options would seem to be about making a decision in terms of (1) reducing the number, steepness, corners and length of descents vs keeping the sport as it is (ie fairly safe but not without it's dangers); and (2) improving helmet technology and / or reducing race speeds by making pro riders wear much bigger, heavier and safer hemets vs keeping the sport as it is.
I believe the fact that pros wear helmets has an effect on helmet-wearing rates by 'normal' cyclists. No matter what you do to a risky activity, risk compensation will always kick in. This means that even if you make courses safer, riders will then take greater risks on them, because they will be easier to ride and the level of acceptable risk is not made by the course so much but more by the rider's risk assessment. Pro cycling also has its own risk management mechanisms, e.g. how to make a sprint final safe, which occasionally goes wrong, etc.

The bigger, better helmet issue has been discussed ad nauseam, and there's always a trade-off between size/strength and other factors, much as BMMF said above. There's a vast amount of material out there on the Internet, and even some in this thread. :) The most important thing to understand are risk compensation mechanism. That goes to the heart of the matter more than anything else.

Oliver

I just read 250 posts of it from 4 years ago though and basically 9 posts are pointless banter for every one where someone says (sensibly in my book) something along the lines of 'I fell off my bike onto my head and I was damn glad I was wearing my helmet'.

Classic case of [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias]confirmation bias[/ame]. You're clearly not even bothering to read properly the posts you don't like. Waste of time. There's plenty of informed debate to read, you could approach it in a spirit of sceptical inquiry, but you prefer wilful obtuseness.

Invalid Argument - You cannot drive up a ski slope.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av0VsTxJd78"]YouTube
- [0-60] Ken Block's snowboard/rally bit from DC's Mtn.Lab 1.5[/ame]

I have not got time to read the whole thread, but I would be happy to be pointed to clear evidence that helmets make you more likely to die or suffer serious injury. In the absense of said evidence I am happy to make my decision based on the fact that in my experience helmets help prevent pain (if you can point me to evidence that contradicts this I would be astonished).

You have time to read the replies and post long responses though. Why do you continue to ignore the data provided?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

I wear a helmet most of the time.

I come from a country where they are compulsory and I ride events where they are compulsory.

My helmet is has been cracked since the Hovis Freewheel.

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

James, despite having read 'a fair bit', your concerns are some of the main ones that keep coming up again and again and for which pretty good answers have been written. Trust me, once you've been over everything a couple of times, you'll tire of it, too. :)

Do what you want.

It's your damn head.

No, it's my damn head.

My only real concern is 'why is there such an anti helmet agenda... leave me in peace to wear a helmet and protect myself from pain when I next land on my head'

Are people telling you to take off your helmet? No.

How would you feel about compulsory helmet laws being introduced?

Or compulsory tickle laws?

You just want to be fondled more. I can understand that.

I have no idea who you're talking to hippy.

Oh yeah?

son of a.....

ABUSE of power. fo' sho'

reported.

i always thought eyebrowse was a little short, is he a closet dwarf?

son of a.....
ABUSE of power. fo' sho'
reported.

banned

i always thought eyebrowse was a little short, is he a closet dwarf?

He rides a 56cm. That's winner's size that is.