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

When I started wearing a helmet again a few weeks ago I did, for about twenty minutes, feel like I was much safer...a little insight into why some say wearing a helmet makes cyclists take more risks etc etc.

It's perfectly clear that wearing a helmet makes people take more risks, or at least alters their behaviour when you see the number of people who say things like "I would never ride without a helmet"

Which clearly means that wearing a helmet has made them decide it is now safe enough to ride their bikes, whereas without they consider it too dangerous.

If that is not risk compensation I don't know what is.

I have sent this as a response

Hi Helen

Of the thousands of fatalities on the road due to head injuries, how many involved cyclists, and how many of them were not wearing helmets?

Would you not find greater benefit in campaigning for car passengers to wear helmets if you wanted to seriously address the issue of road user head injuries?

Have you looked at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ it is a very clear and well researched website about helmets and cycling.

Kind regards

James

It's perfectly clear that wearing a helmet makes people take more risks, or at least alters their behaviour when you see the number of people who say things like "I would never ride without a helmet"

Which clearly means that wearing a helmet has made them decide it is now safe enough to ride their bikes, whereas without they consider it too dangerous.

If that is not risk compensation I don't know what is.

It means that they are risk averse and if they are going to take part in an activity with a level of risk then they intend to minimise that risk whilst doing so.

Some pedestrians looks both ways before crossing the road and don't jay walk. Does it make being a pedestrian 100% safe? No. Its the same form of risk management.

keep it moving folks, theres so many representatives who are underinformed
back on it today with this lady I met personally several months ago to dissaude from her failed parliamentary bill to make helmet use legal
she is trying to get the house to do a review of evidence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-19138805
few people have been on to me and this is what theyre getting back
"I met Annette B. Several months ago when she was pushing.this in the house, strongly advised her.to refrain from the stance and educated her on the facts of.helmet use.

Last year Rob Jefferies was riding.with helmet and was tragically killed by a driver[
]Many of.these people.from headway and other orgs Don't ride bikes, and aren't adequately informed about the outcomes of cycle crashes]"

after recently surviving a 30 mph crash helmetless myself this it getting me going again pretty godamm quick

James

They have dropped the implied link between the death a person who appears to have suffered from major trauma to the lower abdomen and the wearing of helmets.

Surely this is job done, leave them alone, step away from the keyboard time?

Of the thousands of fatalities on the road due to head injuries, how many involved cyclists, and how many of them were not wearing helmets?

Cross posted from another thread:

There were 107 cyclist fatalities in the UK in 2011.

Using "thousands" may not technically be untrue but the most obvious reading of that particular sentence implies that , "Cycling is a great way to stay fit" & "each year thousands die on Britain's roads as a result of head injuries due to road traffic accidents" are referring to the same thing.

It's worth noting that I have no idea how many of those 107 were wearing helmets as I cannot find the data.

I never wear a helmet, I hate the blasted things, and I have sustained minor head injuries because of it, I know the risks but you would have to make it law for me to wear one.

keep it moving folks, theres so many representatives who are underinformed
back on it today with this lady I met personally several months ago to dissaude from her failed parliamentary bill to make helmet use legal
she is trying to get the house to do a review of evidence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-19138805
few people have been on to me and this is what theyre getting back
"I met Annette B. Several months ago when she was pushing.this in the house, strongly advised her.to refrain from the stance and educated her on the facts of.helmet use.

Last year Rob Jefferies was riding.with helmet and was tragically killed by a driver[
]Many of.these people.from headway and other orgs Don't ride bikes, and aren't adequately informed about the outcomes of cycle crashes]"

after recently surviving a 30 mph crash helmetless myself this it getting me going again pretty godamm quick

If you don't mind me asking, do you feel a helmet would have given you any protection in the circumstances of your crash?

I too was wondering this M.F.

Chapeaux to the forum in general by the way for not speculating either way on m.f.'s rider down thread.

If you don't mind me asking, do you feel a helmet would have given you any protection in the circumstances of your crash?

No bother.
Very little at all. This is part of the whole mix, read into the research presented in cyclehelmets.org and see the fallacy of non cyclists demandinglaw enforcement.
Read Schicks posts.
How the Fuck are we living somewhere that permits unfettered driving with no subsequent testing after first pass?look at the level of.other activitiesreqquiring.tests/training and compare to lifetimes of.driving unmonitored its unbelievable

The speed of your crash was well above the supposed point at which a helmets benefits are limited...

I respect Mr Schick's opinions and usually agree with them. However I think the message is being confused. IMHO people should be encouraged to wear helmets for the reason that they do help in some circumstances. A lot of time and money has been ploughed into providing empirical proof of their effectiveness either way and all that happens is cyclists argue with each other. What a waste of time.

look at the level of.other activitiesreqquiring.tests/training and compare to lifetimes of.driving unmonitored its unbelievable

agreed. years ago a guy on the A5 stopped dead in front of me on a traffic lighted roundabout - the light was on green - I went into the back of him, low speed impact - the guy then got out, he was in his eighties with the biggest cataracts you ever did see! my company were in touch with his Son about the insurance - the guy's Son said he had been begging the DVLA and insurers to not allow his Dad to drive any longer, but they could not stop him

I have to near drown myself escaping from a helicopter simulator underwater every 3 years to be allowed to be a passenger on a chopper FFS

makes no sense

P.S went out for ride on Saturday, just for once thought 'fuck the helmet' - it was bloody lovely

P.S went out for ride on Saturday, just for once thought 'fuck the helmet' - it was bloody lovely

which is why I don't wear one in spite of the risk

Eightball didn't fuck his helmet in the way you would expect...

The speed of your crash was well above the supposed point at which a helmets benefits are limited...

Appears to be a very common misunderstanding about the often quoted 12mph impact speed helmets are supposedly reliable for. The velocity with which your head might hit the ground has nothing to do with the speed you're doing at the time, be it 5 or 50mph.

Imagine standing infront of a brick wall and banging your head against it. Just because you're stationary doesn't mean the impact speed is zero.

which is why I don't wear one in spite of the risk

What risk?

The risk of looking unstylish, something you will never have to worry about Dave ;)

Eightball didn't fuck his helmet in the way you would expect...

ouch

Thanks Chris ;)

Appears to be a very common misunderstanding about the often quoted 12mph impact speed helmets are supposedly reliable for. The velocity with which your head might hit the ground has nothing to do with the speed you're doing at the time, be it 5 or 50mph.

Imagine standing infront of a brick wall and banging your head against it. Just because you're stationary doesn't mean the impact speed is zero.

Of course...its obvious but I hadn't really thought of it like that. I guess it varies by crash...rider might go in arms first and slow down slightly etc

Just about to contribute a virtually meaningless bit of info to this thread.

Last week I happened to be first(ish) on the scene to four cycle accidents. None of these involved vehicles.

1) Forum member dropping into huge pot hole, very heavy impact with damage to steel bike. No helmet, no head impact...just a few scrapes to elbow and hip. LUCKY.

2) Cyclist riding into back of another cyclist who swerved out whilst talking on her phone. Cyclist on first bike stayed on and rode off. Cyclist who ran into her hit head on floor, was wearing helmet and was fine.

3) Cyclist T-Boned a car turning off road through traffic. I saw car turning from some distance, car was obscured from cyclist by vehicles. I shouted warning, cyclist didn't hear. Cyclist had ipod on. Cyclist head impacted with car, wearing helmet, no major injuries.

4) Cyclist (iPod in, helmet on) jumped red light, looked left, didn't see oncoming car. Car dropped the anchors, cyclist saw car at last minute and swerved out of the way causing her to fall off. Head hit floor, lots of scraping to helmet, no other injuries.

Its not possible to say whether helmet wearing and/or headphone use had any influence on these accidents and thats why this thread is 83 pages long. Read into these as you will but I've started wearing a helmet again and never ride with 'phones in because I know that hearing has saved me from crashes (as a last resort sense) on a few occasions.

One cycle trainer on the forum recently told me "If you are using your hearing, you're doing it wrong". This is bollocks.

If you are relying on your hearing you are doing it wrong. If personally find that hearing what is going around me (including squeaky drivetrains of people undertaking me) supplements my visual awareness from my regular shoulder checks etc.

1) Look where you're going
2) Anticipate idiots/give other riders space
3) Don't undertake at speed/do anticipate cars turning into junctions
4) Don't RLJ

All of these seem pretty avoidable - some cycle training would probably be of most benefit to all involved.

Had a conversation with a taxi driver the other week about cycling and helmets (well, I say had a conversation - he commented on a cyclist riding in the lane, I gave him an alternative view of what was happening, he then gave me his 'opinion' on the matter)

Waste of my breath - the guy could not see past 'cycling on the road is dangerous' end of. Be careful out there, I suspect there may be more of these so called 'taxi drivers'......

1) Forumenger in question was on my wheel, I called and pointed the hole and by his own admission he made the wrong choice and choice to swerve and dropped his wheel into it. The hole has been reported to Southwark since March last year and is even visible on Google maps (junction of Tooley St and Shad Thames). Rider was looking where he was going but made a poor judgment (if said rider would like to correct me, then he/she knows who he/she is ;) )

EDIT: Worth pointing out that the individual in question is a safe rider with more cycle training than the vast majority of us. Just a one off misdjudgement at the end of the day I think.

Modern helmet design means that your head is ~1.5 degrees cooler than if you are not wearing a helmet*, and the Kamm tail design means that you are also more aerodynamic with a helmet than without.

Therefore if you want to ride fast then a helmet is a logical piece of kit to wear.

*Manufacturers claims, it is true