Cycle helmet wearers are reckless

[Rod Tibbs]

Yes they do work

I can say quite categorically that helmets do work. I hit the road headfirst when a truck backed into me and the side of my helmet was crushed. The neurosurgery department of Addenbrooke's Hospital confirmed that I would have been dead had it not been for the helmet.

Fact - not opinion.

Rod

 

[flecc]

I'm pleased that you were ok Rod, but it was the opinion of the neurosurgery department that you would have been dead, not fact.
.

 

[Citrus]

I'm pleased that you were ok Rod, but it was the opinion of the neurosurgery department that you would have been dead, not fact.
.

I think that was a bit OTT flecc. Based on years of experience and probably the damaged taken to the helmet I would suspect that the neurosurgeons weren't merely expressing just an opinion, and were in fact basing their statement on previous accidents over a number of years. That may still be just an opinion in "your opinion" - but I think you have may have called it wrong this time. Incidentally I have a helmet (bought under duress from family/wife) that I never wear because I feel restricted by it. But I don't believe your original hypothesis.

 

[flecc]

I think that was a bit OTT flecc. Based on years of experience and probably the damaged taken to the helmet I would suspect that the neurosurgeons weren't merely expressing just an opinion, and were in fact basing their statement on previous accidents over a number of years. That may still be just an opinion in "your opinion" - but I think you have may have called it wrong this time. Incidentally I have a helmet (bought under duress from family/wife) that I never wear because I feel restricted by it. But I don't believe your original hypothesis.

I honestly don't think so Citrus. What you are saying is that their opinion was a very good one, probably as good as it would be possible to get, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. It is still an opinion though, impossible to prove so not a fact. Therefore what I posted was by definition not OTT.

I don't believe your original hypothesis.

It wasn't necessarily my only hypothesis as I explained to Nick earlier. The alternative is that the claims of the deaths/injuries resulting are exaggerated, hence my posting above for accuracy in statements about this.
.

 

[Brian-Lopes]

I wear a helmet, I don't personally find it uncomfortable, and couldn't care less if some idiot says it looks stupid. I can see the arguement from the non-helmet wearers, but find it very irresponsible for people to advise not wearing one on a public forum, when people come to such forums looking for advice. Neither side has proof of their arguement, so why not just leave it to everyone's personal choice? Ask yourselves this, how would you feel if somebody from this forum got knocked off, and died as a result, and wasn't wearing a helmet because they read a stupid thread and decided against wearing a helmet?

I haven't long been on here, and didn't want to start on a negative point, but to be honest, I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Big Bri

 

[flecc]

I haven't long been on here, and didn't want to start on a negative point, but to be honest, I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Big Bri

But have you read correctly Brian?

My thread was not about the pros and cons of helmet wearing, it concerns the behaviour of one large group of helmet wearers who constantly promote helmet wearing and make a nuisance of themselves to non-wearers. In doing so their method usually shows themselves to be less safe road users than non-wearers, if they are telling the truth about the accident outcomes they portray.

Ergo, it was not a stupid thread as you've so rudely said.

Unfortunately many seemed to think the thread was about the pros and cons.
.

 

[Danny-K]

Shouts down serving hatch:

They want ANOTHER can of worms? Sheesh . . alright try these little beauts -

(P.S. Okay, no more worms for fear of being told where to shove 'em).

 

[Citrus]

Since almost every helmet wearer promoting their use has an account of how a helmet has saved them from death or serious injury, enough evidence of that fact being in this forum, my conclusion is within the realms of reasonability, since the many non-helmet wearers posting clearly haven't been killed or seriously brain damaged.

.

Okay flecc. I have re-read the threads and stumbled across the above gem. Using your - in my opinion - slightly skewed logic within the confines of this topic only, how can you possibly know that the non-helmet wearing posters haven't been killed or seriously brain-damaged. They wouldn't presumably be able to make any more posts (although I am sure a couple have ) and hence just become a statistic of a member who ceased posting or only had a short posting history. A member who wears a helmet, survives an accident, and then posts about it is clearly still alive and probably not brain damaged. And we have a few of those do we not?

 

[Howard]

This is always such a contentious issue, isn't it? I can see Flecc's point that this thread was about the attitude of those who wear helmets, not the pros and cons of wearing them. However, it's a very subtle difference, and it was pretty much inevitable where the thread would go! I've found it very interesting reading the arguments both for and against, both in this and previous threads (it has been done to death, after all). I'm pretty convinced that it makes very little difference if you wear a helmet or not. I did have an accident about 10 years ago in which my helmet got smashed up and I ended up in hospital, and was in the 'if i hadn't been wearing a helmet...' camp, but having heard all the arguments I'm pretty sure I would have been OK either way. I have always worn a helmet,especially after that accident, but I must admit that given the evidence I'd rather not wear one as it's all more faff - one more bit of equipment to worry about! However, I will continue to wear a helmet, but only because of the grief I would get from the wife if I didn't! So there you go Flecc - even though the thread has gone a bit off course, it's convinced at least one person to move from the 'my helmet saved my life' camp to 'who gives a ....'
Howard

 

[flecc]

I take your point Citrus, but since so many have misunderstood this thread so comprehensively, I gave a full explanation of my purpose in an answer to Nick earlier in the thread.

In that I showed the relationship between the accident outcome claims of the proselytising wearers and actual accident outcomes. Despite that, posters have continued to willfully read the thread as something else and I've been struggling to get them to understand the subject of the thread and posted carelessly in this instance.

Frankly I'm beginning to despair at the number who are so bigoted on the helmet subject that they cannot see anything but their own agenda when they see the H word and fail to see what has actually been posted.

P.S. By "slightly skewed logic", do you mean not skewed enough to your views?
.

 

[flecc]

I can see Flecc's point that this thread was about the attitude of those who wear helmets, not the pros and cons of wearing them. However, it's a very subtle difference, and it was pretty much inevitable where the thread would go!

So there you go Flecc - even though the thread has gone a bit off course, it's convinced at least one person to move from the 'my helmet saved my life' camp to 'who gives a ....'
Howard

Thanks Howard, though your conclusion wasn't my objective of course. . I would never want my choice to be pushed onto anyone else.

I don't think the difference between the point I was making and the way it was taken was subtle though, it seems a very different aspect to me. Although not a wearer, I did make my view on the wearing issue very clear on the first page of the thread when I replied to Carrigada, " I would defend your right to helmet wearing". To me it's just an individual choice matter.
.

 

[bode]

Yep, I'm feeling mischievous!

Frankly I'm beginning to despair at the number who are so bigoted on the helmet subject that they cannot see anything but their own agenda

You reap what you sow.

 

[Cyclezee]

Try This Little Quiz And Post Your Score

Need a helmet ?​

No statistics. No trapping you like a fly in an essay of exquisitely spun logic. Instead, a simple questionnaire. Please choose the most appropriate answer, then score yourself at the end. ​

1 point for answer'A'​

2 pointsfor'B'​

3 pointsfor'C'.​

1. Do you wear a helmet now?
A. Not when I'm reading. But come to think about it, most accidents happen at home.
B. It depends on the terrain. Quiet country lanes, no. Escalators, yes.
C. Only for the first few weeks after I've had an accident; skull fractures make me clumsy.​

2. How accident-prone are you?
A. My parents always tell me I was an accident. Does that count?
B. I don't trip over my own feet, as long as my shoelaces have been tied by somebody competent.
C. The NHS keeps a room in reserve.​

3. What's the last accident you were involved in?
A. Voting New Labour.
B. Falling off bike while trying to click into clipless pedals. (It happens.)
C. Door. Opened. Flew over. It's all fading to black. Rosebud.​

4. Are you a cautious person?
A. I put stabilisers on my trike.
B. I don't buy a CD unless I'm pretty sure I like at least 3 of the songs.
C. I leap before I look. That's what suspension is for, innit? Besides, I like surprises.​

5. Do you tend to obey traffic laws?
A. Yes, if the lights tend to be green.
B. Unless there's a perfectly good reason not to, which can then be explained to a police constable if the need arises.
C. It depends on what I feel to be the true intent of the traffic engineers.​

6. How would you describe yourself?
A. Meek. Gentle. Vegan. Aquarius.
B. Relaxed. Often Prone. Cool to the touch. Possibly deceased.
C. Fearless. Headstrong. Daring. Unbalanced.​

7. What's your marital status?
A. Legally wed to bicycle in C of E approved ceremony.

B. Happily married, but spouse must approve bicycle expenditures over two figures.​

C. Single. Don't know which bike I'll be riding next. Don't much care, as long as it's fast.

8. If you presently wear a helmet, do you know how to put it on properly?
A. No, but my partner does.

B. Yes, of course. I'm not thick. And I appreciate that manufacturers put the visor in back; it stops my neck from getting sunburnt.​

C. Before I crash, right?

9. If you don't wear a helmet, what would induce you?
A. An ad campaign featuring that Opium perfume woman, but only if it's obvious she's at least thinking about a helmet, or it just wouldn't work for me artistically.

B. A personal testimony beginning or ending, "Thank God I was wearing a helmet".
C. Improved aerodynamics so insults fly right over my head.​

10. Do statistics make the case for you?
A. Not really. The only numbers I pay attention to are the ones showing cyclists live longer than non-cyclists, lid or no lid.
B. Depends if I know one of those statistics by name.​

C. Could you repeat the question? My retrograde amnesia is acting up again. Er, did you just say something?

11. Do you believe in risk homeostasis?
A. I don't believe in discrimination of any kind.

B. You mean the theory that the safer an activity is made, the more risks you'll take, thus negating any benefits? Never heard of it.
C. Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that every time I hold onto the back of lorries, they try to shake me off.​

12. What best sums up your attitude about helmets?
A. Uncomfortable. Confining. Fetishistic.
B. Buying one gives me another excuse to go to the bike shop.
C. I've found the straps can be used as a tourniquet.​

0 points: Forgot to take quiz​

12 - 19 points: No helmet necessary. The damage has already been done.​

20 - 29 points: Wear a helmet if it would improve your appearance, or if your significant other starts making too many hints about your last will and testament.​

30 - 36 points: You should be wearing your helmet at all times, only removing it for the occasional CAT scan.​

J hn Score = 24

 

[essexman]

In fact I've never hit my head once since I started wearing a helmet religiously which makes me all the more certain that the first time I go out without it I'll come a cropper. It's the old lottery ticket syndrome!

Thats great! Good on you for saying it!

 

[essexman]

Anyway this thread must be some kind of record for most numbers of posts in a timeframe. So congrats Flecc! Were you trying to get some traffic into your site?

I wonder if posts on helmets show some kind of exponential rise and fall in posting rate?

....and on a similar musing vein. You remember that experiment where Ian walker showed that if you wore a helmet then drivers passed you closer than if you didnt? I wonder how a Yakkay helmet would compare?

 

[flecc]

You reap what you sow.

Yes, but don't you think it sad that a good humoured introduction to a thread making a valid point should give rise to such partisan behaviour on both sides of a different subject, the original subject almost completely ignored.
.

 

[flecc]

Anyway this thread must be some kind of record for most numbers of posts in a timeframe. So congrats Flecc! Were you trying to get some traffic into your site?

Not into my site which gets loads anyway, but it was intended to add interest in this site and keep it stimulated. I suppose 95 posts and 1854 views as I just looked is fairly rapid, but it's peanuts to the numbers in some other threads. Outside of the permanent sticky threads I claim the record for that, my Q bike thread having 131 posts and 7889 views. Next down was one member who only ever posted 9 times, but a thread he posted got 3831 views, quite record for a newby. It must have frightened him for he disappeared after that.

....and on a similar musing vein. You remember that experiment where Ian walker showed that if you wore a helmet then drivers passed you closer than if you didnt? I wonder how a Yakkay helmet would compare?

I remember that article, very interesting. I suppose the Yakkay users would have the safety accorded to non-helmet wearers, though they might need another sort of thick protective skin.
.

 

[Barnowl]

Need a helmet ?​

No statistics. No trapping you like a fly in an essay of exquisitely spun logic. Instead, a simple questionnaire. Please choose the most appropriate answer, then score yourself at the end.

0 points: Forgot to take quiz​

12 - 19 points: No helmet necessary. The damage has already been done.​

20 - 29 points: Wear a helmet if it would improve your appearance, or if your significant other starts making too many hints about your last will and testament.​

30 - 36 points: You should be wearing your helmet at all times, only removing it for the occasional CAT scan.​

J hn Score = 24​

My score 0.​

 

[Barnowl]

I remember that article, very interesting. I suppose the Yakkay users would have the safety accorded to non-helmet wearers, though they might need another sort of thick protective skin.
.

Yes, the Yakkay "New Tokyo Jazz Pink" has to be safest helmet on the market. I'm tempted.

 

[john]

Of course, it is probably true that the accounts of death/brain damage etc are an exaggeration and the outcomes would not have been as claimed.

Getting back to your original point, people tend naturally to want to support decisions that they have made. Hence your suggestion above seems the most likely explanation.