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

Nipper on the far right: is that a jelly mould over a baseball cap?

Doris in the lead: FFS learn how to use a helmet if you're trying to set an example

It did make me think something though. I think that there are quite a few people on this thread who are quite convinced about helmets not being of any real benefit and who don't wear helmets as a result. If you fall into this category may I ask you a question or few? To what extent do you wonder whether evidence will come to light in the future that shows helmets to be beneficial (obviously they will never be proven to be perfect, or the most important factor in cyclist safety)? Would you wear a helmet if the evidence was solid? What is the likelihood of such evidence coming to light, in your opinion (over say the next 10 or 20 years)? How much stronger would the evidence need to be convince you to be pro-compulsion as well as a wearer? I am not assuming that such evidence will come to light by the way, especially on the question of compulsion.

In my case I don't make my decision based on the effectiveness of the helmet. My decision is based on the likeliness of my having the type of fall in which a helmet would be beneficial. I simply do not believe that given my style of cycling I am at more risk of hitting my head falling from a bike than I am walking across the marble floors at work in heels, running up the station steps in the rain, reaching out of the shower to get the soap I left beside the sink, or countless other things I do regularly without a helmet.

In fact, there are activities I do where I do choose to wear a helmet because I judge the risk of hitting my head to be quite high: snowboarding, some DIY, test rides after doing some work on the bike, riding a more aggressive / faster bike. So I certainly do think helmets offer protection. I just don't think when it comes to my day to day cycling the risk is enough to justify it, and it does nothing to address the things I consider to be genuine risks. Drunks and keys again.

If evidence came to light that helmets were somehow effective in repelling cars, avoiding potholes or protecting more of me than just than my head then I would be more likely to wear one as it would address more of the risks I am likely to face. If evidence came to light that my 5+ years of avoiding a head injury are a crazy fluke and on average someone who cycles like me will hit their head hard (but not too hard) at least annually I would reconsider.

Chance of either of those happening in the next 10-20 years? Tending to zero.

It might be rubbish reporting, she may have said loads of positive stuff and a desperate reporter seized upon the contentious stuff. Or, she's a witch, burn her.

How is it rubbish reporting? If she said it, she said it.

No one is going to print stuff she didn't say. Especially nowadays.

I bet she said loads of boring stuff in the interview. That's not news though, is it?

Don’t wear a helmet cause I simply don’t like them and whatever the benefit might be, it doesn’t weigh up the discomfort and inconvenience. I don’t care about, nor do I question the potential benefit of wearing a helmet.

I don’t.

No.

Don’t know, don’t care.

That will never happen.

Fuck me, I actually agree in entirety with a Lynchman post.

That mad bastard, of all people

Overheard down the road alongside Greenwich Park as Father parks up and is taking his daughters bike out of the carboot ...

daughter - "Daddy do I have to wear my helmet ?"
father - "Yes , until we get into the park"

You could prove helmets perfectly effective in preventing head injuries and i'd only maybe start wearing them. You'd have to replace roads with some far more hostile environment that made helmets a lot more relevant before i'd consider compulsion. (I wouldn't hesitate to wear a site helmet on a construction site.)

I think improvements in helmet technology are more likely than simply the emergence of new evidence that undermined the current picture. But see above.

"Fuck me, I actually agree in entirety with a Lynchman post. That mad bastard, of all people."

Like a dog who speaks, very rare. Admitting to it... Like a dog who speaks Norwegian, even rarer.

"...Christ almighty, the internet is a bad place for me when i've been drinking, it's like a proving ground for all my worst advice and encouragement over everything."

Trying to establish an alibi eh...

How is it rubbish reporting? If she said it, she said it.

No one is going to print stuff she didn't say. Especially nowadays.

I bet she said loads of boring stuff in the interview. That's not news though, is it?

The strapline is:

The London 2012 champion spoke out on rider behaviour using the strongest terms yet in her role as the chief ambassador for the Mayor, who has expressed concern that cycling’s image is being tarnished by an aggressive, Lycra-clad minority.

but Laura never actually mentioned the word "Lycra". Or the word "aggressive". That's dishonest reporting.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

Elsewhere the authors have commented that the benefit of helmet debates is that they lead to a better understanding of the frailty of academic research and of the complexity of risk and behaviour in society.

The strapline is:

but Laura never actually mentioned the word "Lycra". Or the word "aggressive". That's dishonest reporting.
I think she meant to say "helmeted"

Is Jeez secretly Laura Trott?

Has this been resolved yet?

[insert facepalm here]

It is impossible to know what he is thinking

ftfy

P.s. I take it there are no hard surfaced paths in Greenwich Park?

Here's a little anecdote for you Jeez.
I used to have a helmet, an expensive one. I won it at a race and was very proud of it.
It was about three weeks old when I was cycling on the grass across a park and I spotted a dog running towards it's owner, and we were on collision course.
I braked and slowed to almost nothing, less than walking pace and the dog clipped my front wheel, which swung round and I went down. I landed on my back and was completely unhurt, a bit muddy though.
I got up laughing, the dog's owner was very apologetic, but I saw the funny side and we laughed and I rode on.
When I finished my ride I took off my treasured crash helmet and it was split right down the middle, and only held together by the straps.
In no way do I think it offered me any protection, a low speed fall onto soft earth was exactly what that parent rightly thought would be safe.
I have hit the earth many times and many times much harder doing sports that don't ever factor head protection.
Specialized sent me a new one, I still have it, gathering dust in it's box.

Why are you bothering with this Jeez?

The strapline is:

but Laura never actually mentioned the word "Lycra". Or the word "aggressive". That's dishonest reporting.

Are you for real?

The Standard didn't quote her saying the word aggressive but by what she said she certainly insinuated aggressive (weaving between buses etc).

The Lycra bit is bad sub-editing. Most likely an old sub who is too out of shape to ride a bike trying to be overly florid in his description of cyclists. Hardly misleading though.

Perhaps you should write a letter to the editor of the Standard, then, and set them straight. I'm sure it would cause much hilarity in the newsroom.

Specialized sent me a new one, I still have it, gathering dust in it's box.

Dibs pending size.

Jeez, are you aware of the safety benefits of full DH armour, including leg and am pads, chest, shoulder and back protection, a neck brace and full face helmet? When will we see you in your new commuting gear? It's almost certain that it would offer protection in at least some situations so I can't think of a reason you would choose not to wear it.

Pics or it didn't happen...

Why are you bothering with this Jeez?

In fact why are we all bothering to continue arguing about this issue many of us posting (more or less the same thing) in this thread over and over again?

I do have a problem with the idea that I am the unreasonable one on this thread compared to someone who is determined not to wear a hlemet whatever the proven benefits however.
It is not about being reasonable or not. You do however seem to believe that the benefits of cycle helmets have been proven, and go on and on about it while other people here believe that the benefits have not been proven and possibly may be unprovable.
Also you are happy to recommend that people wear a helmet, which is fine. You appear to take umbridge when other people here a happy not to recommend that people wear a helmet.

@charlie_lcc
Why do we bother?
(Can't figure)
Jeez does make one good point though

Besides this seems to be one of those threads where anyone with any sense on here knows to avoid if they don't want to read the same shit over and over
.

In fact why are we all bothering to continue arguing about this issue many of us posting (more or less the same thing) in this thread over and over again?

I just saw a roe deer eating apples off the tree in the garden.