Cycle helmet wearers are reckless

[Tiberius]

Unfortunately it was turned into a thread about the pros and cons of helmet wearing, well off subject.
.

Hi Tony,

Well let's try to keep it as a thread about how daft some of the arguments presented by the extremists are. I'm sure we both agree on that, and that actually, even if I do wear a helmet sometimes, we are on pretty much the same ground.

I'm sorry for associating you with the extremists. Its just that while the helmet worshippers are bad enough, some of those opposing them are also using daft, illogical and misleading arguments. In the spirit of fairness, I am obliged to throw rocks* in both directions.

Nick

*We use only ROSPA approved simulated plastic rocks with a Rockwell Hardness of less than 0.1. No minerals were harmed in the making of this argument.

 

[Sector]

Speed kills, and accidents happen.

Speed kills
Double the speed and you have four times the energy. This is really surprising! Its very hard to grasp, so we could say:

Speed kills, and not a lot of people know that.

Your head at 40 mph has sixteen times the kinetic energy as mine at 10 mph. It has to be dissipated as damage or heat in a crash. Lots of potential for fatalities.

Accidents Happen
Say you skid on a patch of spilt diesel fuel when you are going down hill. At 40 mph and with a reaction time of quarter of a second you travel over 4 metres before you can start to do anything about it. Your chances of survival are more dependent on the proximity of any large heavy stationary objects than on whether you are wearing a helmet.

Cars
Modern cars have a central robust compartment, with crumple zones back and front to absorb the energy. The occupant is strapped in so that they decelerate with the central compartment.

Bikes
Bike and motorbikes actually have quite an effective crumple zone in the front wheel and the forks. The trouble is the rider tends to detach from the bike and pile head first into the object in front at the speed he was riding at.

So the really reckless thing to be doing is using two wheeled transport at all, particularly at motorbike speeds or as in high speed cycling. We could do our journeys at 30 mph in cars and be much safer.

However we don't propose to give up our bikes do we? So we are choosing to be reckless. That puts a new slant on this debate. Why do we choose to be reckless? Could it be that being reckless has some advantages?

 

[flecc]

Hi Tony,

Well let's try to keep it as a thread about how daft some of the arguments presented by the extremists are. I'm sure we both agree on that, and that actually, even if I do wear a helmet sometimes, we are on pretty much the same ground.

I'm sorry for associating you with the extremists. Its just that while the helmet worshippers are bad enough, some of those opposing them are also using daft, illogical and misleading arguments. In the spirit of fairness, I am obliged to throw rocks* in both directions.

Nick

*We use only ROSPA approved simulated plastic rocks with a Rockwell Hardness of less than 0.1. No minerals were harmed in the making of this argument.

Absolutely Nick, there's probably as many daft arguments against as for.

The only thing I stand for is independence and the right not be harangued

Love the disclaimer.
.

 

[flecc]

Speed kills, and accidents happen.

Why do we choose to be reckless? Could it be that being reckless has some advantages?

That's a nicely condensed summary of facts and good sense, though I'm inclined to say accidents tend to be caused rather than just happen.

As for the advantages of recklessness, that's a large and fascinating subject which contains some surprising conclusions.

Traditional wisdom recognises that in the saying, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained".
.

 

[derrick7]

Because of the mirror

I now wear a helmet because of the rear view mirror which clips into the peak of the helmet, I like to see who is coming up behind me. Also a small LED rear light clips onto the rear of the helmet that I can use if ever my main rear light fails.

Derrick - Llanberis

 

[flecc]

I'm also a mirror fan Derrick, probably the best optional primary safety device possible for a bike, and I know many riders like the helmet mounted ones in preference to handlebar mounted ones which can be a nuisance if they get dislodged.

Concerning rear lights at night, as the most overtaken vehicle on the road, bikes can never have too many.
.

 

[wibble]

However we don't propose to give up our bikes do we? So we are choosing to be reckless. That puts a new slant on this debate. Why do we choose to be reckless? Could it be that being reckless has some advantages?

I personally don't choose to be reckless. I just choose not to wear a plastic hat on my head.

I would happily wear an invisible helmet.

...provided it didn't ruin my hair.

 

[carpetbagger]

Personally i wear a helmet, but i don't think it should be made compulsory.
As regards injuries caused by wearing a helmet in an accident maybe if more emphasis was put on gettiing a correct fit instead of plonk it on your head and it seems ok scenario,then there may be less injuries. After all you now get measured for the correct size of bra (so my wife says) and thats hardly a safety issue unless you are on a bumpy road !!!!!!

 

[CheKmx]

If only reckless people posting here are helmet wearers then might that be an indication that helmets work, at least for the reckless.

 

[flecc]

If only reckless people posting here are helmet wearers then might that be an indication that helmets work, at least for the reckless.

Good point CheKmx.

Someone's got to test them.
.

 

[Tim]

Can we just spare a moment to distinguish between helmets that look like they may have been prised off an alien's crotch

And those which have more style?

Thank you

 

[torrent99]

Cycling proficiency...

Currently I have 3 helmets:

When I'm climbing I wear my climbing helmet.
When I'm whitewater kayaking I wear my kayaking helmet.
When I'm cycling I wear my cycling helmet.

Do they work?
Well the climbing helmet has certainly deflected quite a few falling rocks that might otherwise have brained me.
The kayaking helmet has also saved me from very nasty blows from underwater rocks, that would certainly have severely injured if not killed me.

The cycling helmet? Well the trouble with these is they are designed for the single large impact of a nasty accident. Luckily I've not yet (touch wood, cross fingers, and bow down to the great traffic god) had one.
And this is the trouble with saying do they work, who is willing to try it out?

Personally I wear one because a) I feel naked without it b) I know it's likely to give some protection. The way I see it in an accident there
are 3 main classes of outcome:

A) You are dead.
B) You are seriously injured probably with major brain damage.
C) You are lightly injured/OK.

In my opinion a helmet moves more of the B) accidents into A) accidents...


However, as flecc pointed out earlier in the thread the emphasis should really be on accident avoidance.
So if we are going to make anything compulsary it should be some form of cycling training.
Perhaps cycling proficiency should be on the national curriculum to be taught every year. Might encourage kids to cycle, and reduce the accident rate
at the same time.


Reckless??? Well with climbing you can guarantee that every few years (particularly after someone has died), there are calls in the news to restrict climbing in some way, to stop these reckless fools, compulsary insurance etc. etc.
When actually climbing is about controlling risk, knowing the dangers, planning for them, then taking an informed risk. Should climbers be stopped from taking that risk?


Cycling without a helmet is a risk, so long as you know that and accept that, it's not really a problem with me.

Cheers

Steve

 

[flecc]

Should climbers be stopped from taking that risk?

No, nor should any other risky activity be banned. I firmly believe we own our own lives and can choose what we want to do with them.

If, despite that effect of free will, humans choose to live as communities, the costs of such individual decisions are a normal part of community costs.
.

 

[nin26]

Currently I have 3 helmets:



Personally I wear one because a) I feel naked without it b) I know it's likely to give some protection. The way I see it in an accident there
are 3 main classes of outcome:

A) You are dead.
B) You are seriously injured probably with major brain damage.
C) You are lightly injured/OK.

In my opinion a helmet moves more of the B) accidents into A) accidents...

Really? A freudian slip if ever I saw one!

 

[torrent99]

Really? A freudian slip if ever I saw one!

Yep you're right I meant B into C! Whoops! Actually I'd prefer if it eliminated B) and we were just left with A and C (for head injuries better dead than vegetable).

 

[nin26]

for head injuries better dead than vegetable.

Which pretty much sums up why I don't bother with a helmet - plus I'd rather not have some daft lump of plastic strapped to my head, restricting my movement and distracting me when I'm looking over my shoulder.

I reckon I'll just stick with lighting myself up like a Christmas tree, staying out of the way of idiot cagers and assuming they're all trying to kill me!

 

[torrent99]

plus I'd rather not have some daft lump of plastic strapped to my head,

Funny in the early 90's when I wore a helmet, I saw that as a positive. If you had something silly looking strapped to you, the drivers might take more notice!

(Of course it doesn't work now)

 

[Cyclezee]

I would suggest that all those who don't like cycling helmets, also don't like wearing seat belts or airbags in cars. Therefore might I also suggest they refrain from wearing seat belts, disable or remove airbags from their cars and fit a large metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel pointing towards them . Please also plaster the car with highly visible stickers carrying the following message: IN THE EVENT OF A SERIOUS OR FATAL ACCIDENT, PLEASE IGNORE THE DRIVER OF THIS VEHICLE AND DO NOT CALL THE EMERGENCY SERVICES.
If this policy is adopted, it could save the NHS and emergency services a lot of time and money and help reduce the frequency of posts to this thread
The wrecked vehicle and what will sooner or later be corpse, could simply be bulldozed to the side of the road and left as a reminder to others
A similar procedure could be adopted for non helmet wearing cyclists

J hn

 

[bode]

I would suggest that all those who don't like cycling helmets, also don't like wearing seat belts or airbags in cars.

The two situations are not analogous. Seat belts and airbags have been exhaustively proved to protect the whole body, located as they are within a specially designed cage structure. A bike helmet may protect the head alone in certain types of impact, and, as has been discussed at length here, lend inappropriate psychological reassurance.
I am not saying that helmets have no benefits; what I object to is the use of inflated rhetoric in what ought to be a reasoned discussion.

 

[nin26]

Funny in the early 90's when I wore a helmet, I saw that as a positive. If you had something silly looking strapped to you, the drivers might take more notice!

(Of course it doesn't work now)

Oh, I have no problem with looking daft - I have a day-glo orange rain poncho (ie tent) to prove it. I rather suspect that drivers take quite a good deal of notice of me when I'm cycling anyway, plastic lid or not ... I've not seen any other quite so, er, buxom cyclists round here!