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

Does that not draw them ever closer?

some drivers would take it as a challenge. See I they can hit the reflector without knocking you off.

So, you're talking about subversive skills training? Maybe that's the way forward!!

i wear a helmet it makes me less careful therefore faster and therefore safer cause i spend less time on the road. Simples

Trying so hard to be cool, and failing so spectacularly next to Marianne Weber

Marianne Weber, Belgian journalist riding a BMW R 68, April 1952. In: Motorcycle, 15 August, 1952. Photo: Everts R. G. / BMW Group Archiv.

She tested the R68 for the French magazine "MOTORCYCLE" (issue 81/August 18th, 1952) and achieved a top speed of more than 160 km/h, proving that the R 68 was a true 100mph racing bike. Marianne Weber later achieved 162,895 km/h (101,24 mph) in a "flying kilometre" near the City of Waterloo in Belgium, 1954.

Imagine how fast she would have gone if she hadn't been risk-compensating for her almost total lack of protective clothing.

1 Attachment

Don't normally like BMWs but that bike is teh sex!

Like when she did the actual test, not the photo shoot?

Lady wearing brown brogues and turn-ups

look at that fucking hipster thread

Like when she did the actual test, not the photo shoot?

Not the same person or the same bike, your pic is racer Anke Eve Goldmann

I'm no BMW expert, but the swing arm rear and leading arm front suspension suggests R60, in contradistinction to the R68 with plunger rear and telescopic front fork.

Marianne Weber later achieved 162,895 km/h...

Over one and a half times faster than the Earth orbits the Sun. Impressive.

Still not as fast as 6pt orbits Regents Park tho'.

Imagine how fast she would have gone if she hadn't been risk-compensating for her almost total lack of protective clothing.

Maybe she just doesn't really get risk compensation. Oh, if only she could see this thread - how foolhardy would she feel.

Trying so hard to be cool, and failing so spectacularly next to Marianne Weber
http://8.asset.soup.io/asset/2945/5688_88b5_960.jpeg

She tested the R68 for the French magazine "MOTORCYCLE" (issue 81/August 18th, 1952) and achieved a top speed of more than 160 km/h, proving that the R 68 was a true 100mph racing bike. Marianne Weber later achieved 162,895 km/h (101,24 mph) in a "flying kilometre" near the City of Waterloo in Belgium, 1954.

Imagine how fast she would have gone if she hadn't been risk-compensating for her almost total lack of protective clothing.

Pah, she's positively swathed in protection compared to Rollie Free:
http://motorcyclemuseum.org/halloffame/hofimages/Rollie_Free01.jpg
Seen here achieving 150.313 mph on a Vincent Black Shadow at the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Jeez, you have completely ignored a very important point that MDCC has made:

this is why we ignore anecdote and study populations; if you measure the passing distance enough times, you get a statistically significant view of whether some factors relating to the cyclist influence the behaviour of a population of drivers.

Much of what you have said, especially in point 1, is based on well thought out anecdotes and assumption.

There is no evidence that shows bike helmets seriously increase the risk of death or injury. Therefore I will wear one.

That is a statement of known facts, followed by a reasonable conclusion. But equally, so is this:

There is no evidence that shows bike helmets seriously decrease the risk of death or injury. Therefore I won't wear one.

The whole point of the helmet 'debate' is that it is fought out as though it made any difference, when really neither side can properly lay claim to anything but the most marginal benefit. It is because the question of whether cyclists wear helmets turns out to be so insignificant that libertarians are so vehemently opposed to compulsion. It is hard to see where the advocates of compulsion get their energy, other than from the seemingly boundless resources of ill directed enthusiasm which infect all authoritarians. If compulsory cycling helmets could demonstrably cut cyclist KSIs by 90%, one might give the authoritarians the benefit of the doubt that they were at least well-meaning, albeit that no benefit of such magnitude would actually require compulsion since every cyclist with a brain worth protecting would voluntarily wear a helmet, but when nobody really knows for sure what the total QALY effect of compulsion would be, not even whether it would be positive or negative, one is forced to conclude that the authoritarians are driven by nothing but the usual egotistical ambition of all politicians to enforce their will on the populace.

The massive decrease in in-car fatalities of the past few years is, as far as it has been able to be analysed, due to in-car safety improvements (and a little bit due to congestion in built-up areas). Here's a difference to the cycle helmet risk compensation effect, as people can now drive worse but transfer a proportion of the resultant risk on to other road users.

MDCC for Prime Minister please. Man speaks truths.

Oh and apparently I must spread rep...

"There is no evidence that shows bike helmets seriously decrease the risk of death or injury. Therefore I won't wear one."

There is one source of injury records that would benefit more analysis. That is Hospital Episode Statistics where the majority of A&E admissions for children injured whilst cycling have 'no other vehicle involved'. I think it would be valuable to know how head injuries feature as a proportion for this group.

Those stats might form the basis of a study to clarify what helmets are actually good for (or at least ought to be good for if built to their own safety standard) - eg test the statement "helmets only reduce injury in low speed impacts".

DfT now compare police and hospital records but perhaps commissioning some more in-depth studies would help.

There must be an empirical answer out there somewhere, all the rhetoric just keeps on (t)rolling year after year.

MDCC for Prime Minister please. Man speaks truths.

Nah, it would soon go to his head and he would quickly turn into the egotistical and hypocritical authoritarian that he demises. (All men become the thing they hate and so on)
Never worked out whether the politicians are all that way before they enter politics or something changes once they are there.

all we need is someone to initiate godwins law and we have a perfect "unsubscribe" candidate.

Or just some other pretender with big words.

I don't know the answer but are you statistically more likely to knock your head when cycling?

If you are not then should you also wear a helmet when running, walking, driving a car etc,.?

If a helmet is worn on a risk assessment basis then surely all other activities need to be equally risk assessed. Why just cycling that people see a helmet as an option.

To be fair, even if there's only a 2% chance of getting knocked on your head, I'm sure Jeez's feeling is that the 2% is more than enough reason for him to wear it (which is perfectly reasonable).

Why is this still going?
Didn't mdcc sort everthing?
Oh almost forgot its the first rule of the helmet thread
'If its been said, say it again
.
.
...and again
.
.
...and again

I think you have missed my point.

For me it is 100% fact that I am better off wearing a helmet.

I don't think anyone is concerned about your personal intuition, behaviour or subjective psychological benefits.

The problem, and the reason these discussions drag on forever, is that this sort of personal intuition doesn't extend to cover the sort of numbers involved in policy-making. An almost undetectably small effect in some fraction of cyclists on some fraction of rides can still have a significant outcome over millions of journeys.

The insistence on making policy decisions (or recommendations, or whatever) based on evidence doesn't disparage the use of anecdotal beliefs and rules of thumb in individual decisions; nobody does in-depth analysis of all their daily activities. It just acknowledges that these intuitions don't scale accurately to large numbers, and don't form a suitable framework for discussing policies affecting large numbers.