So would you prefer to be knocked off a bike while not wearing a helmet?
It's not relevant, but you're missing the point. There's a whole industry devoted to selling us safety equipment which is of dubious merit and unlikely to be of any benefit.
I know people just scan read these posts and don't take on board the information, but the reality is that if you fall off your bike you'll damage your extremities - hands, knees, elbows. It's the nature of falling off a bike. If you're really unlucky you might land on your head but the simple act of landing on your head doesn't usually mean anything worse than a bit of a bump & maybe a scrape or two. Serious head injuries as a result of falling off a bike are less common than other head injuries such as falling down stairs, slipping in the shower etc. There are lots of opportunities to damage our heads but it's only cycling that' singled out as apparently so dangerous that anyone not wearing a helmet is apparently just asking to be killed.
Add to that the fact that helmets are only designed to provide protection at low speeds (12mph is the generally accepted number) and that most deaths & serious injuries are the result of injuries to the body not the head, and after a while you start to wonder why you ever bother to wear one. It helps that although I ride at some decent speeds it's virtually all rural.
This was interesting.
Unfortunately in real world crashes modern helmets with all their ventilation holes tend to simply break up, suffering brittle fracture and absorbing next to no energy. Also, as the energy generated in a crash rises with the square of the speed in a simple fall at 30 mph, a helmet can only reduce the impact by the equivalent of around 1 Mph. In a crash involving a motor vehicle the energy generated may well be many hundreds of times greater than a helmet is designed to absorb. It is also significant that even at 12 Mph, a cycle helmet only absorbs a proportion of the energy generated and the test standards will pass a helmet even when the brain experiences a de-acceleration of several hundred g. Then there is the fact that no helmet can stop the brain rotating and 'sloshing' around inside the skull, and it is such motion that causes most serious brain injuries, especially in high-impact crashes.
This what Brian Walker head of Head Protection Evaluations, the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems, had to say about helmets:
"Due in the main to the introduction of the weak harmonised EN1078 European standard, present day cycle helmets generally offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990s…
In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from her cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had her injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other. In every other legal case with which I have been involved, where a cyclist has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present
… the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."
That cycle helmets are almost an irrelevance if the aim is to genuinely 'save lives' is demonstrated by the fact that the safest countries in Europe for cyclists, Denmark and Holland, also have the lowest levels of helmet wearing in Europe.
When it comes to life and death I stand by what I say.. I'd rather there be no victim to blame so if a helmet can prevent a terrible injury then it is ignorant not to wear one... Yes the roads should be safe but they aren't.
It's why pedestrians have to take car when crossing roads.
'You' (as a cyclist or a pedestrian) may not be at fault but 'you' (as a cyclist or a pedestrian) are smaller and much more vulnerable than a vehicle so it makes sense to protect yourself.
Following your argument it would make sense for all pedestrians to wear helmets as that would save more lives than making cyclists wear them.
But still, if you knew you were going to be involved in a collision, would you just gaily cast a helmet aside and not wear it that day? It is relevant.
But still, if you knew you were going to be involved in a collision, would you just gaily cast a helmet aside and not wear it that day? It is relevant.
I wear a helmet anyway, I just don't think it's as important as the media often portray. If I knew I was going to be in a collision I'd wear a helmet as a pedestrian.
But still, if you knew you were going to be involved in a collision, would you just gaily cast a helmet aside and not wear it that day? It is relevant.
. But that's the point. If I knew I was going to have a collision I probably would take precautions, mainly not going that way on the bike that day. 40+ years of not being hit by other road vehicles (except for a postman on his bike when I was 8) and riding on fairly quiet roads leads me to believe that it's not much of a risk, and if a car does hit me all the stats & accumulated knowledge suggest that a helmet won't make a lot of difference to the outcome. If I just fall off all of my 40 years of occasionally falling off suggest that I'll probably suffer a bit of road rash, and carry on. That's what's happened in the past and I'm older & slower these days.
You wear one. Please allow those of us who are happy with the perceived risk to carry on not bothering most of the time.
. But that's the point. If I knew I was going to have a collision I probably would take precautions, mainly not going that way on the bike that day. 40+ years of not being hit by other road vehicles (except for a postman on his bike when I was 8) and riding on fairly quiet roads leads me to believe that it's not much of a risk, and if a car does hit me all the stats & accumulated knowledge suggest that a helmet won't make a lot of difference to the outcome. If I just fall off all of my 40 years of occasionally falling off suggest that I'll probably suffer a bit of road rash, and carry on. That's what's happened in the past and I'm older & slower these days.
You wear one. Please allow those of us who are happy with the perceived risk to carry on not bothering most of the time.
You don't bother 'most of the time'. So why bother any of the time? Maybe a sneaking feeling that actually there is a chance it could make a difference?
You don't bother 'most of the time'. So why bother any of the time? Maybe a sneaking feeling that actually there is a chance it could make a difference?
There are some cycling events where wearing a helmet is a condition of entry.
You don't bother 'most of the time'. So why bother any of the time? Maybe a sneaking feeling that actually there is a chance it could make a difference?
There are some cycling events where wearing a helmet is a condition of entry.
You don't bother 'most of the time'. So why bother any of the time? Maybe a sneaking feeling that actually there is a chance it could make a difference?
To expand on this (thx Afterglow for the previous answer), why is it that 3 pages of posts with links to websites full of info about how helmets aren't that useful, a quote from a very experienced chap who concurred that helmet wearing doesn't mean no damage (and had a court agree), complete absence of any change to KSI where helmets are mandatory, that helmets are a weak standard that's only any good up to kids' speeds of about 12mph, and personal experience that says after 40-odd years of occasionally falling off bikes it's pretty clear to me that helmets don't make much difference, still people don't get it?
I'll say it again. If there was clear evidence that helmets make any appreciable difference I might wear one. There isn't, I've survived this far and so has everybody I went to school with, everybody I've worked with and everyone that I know who cycles for leisure, sport or just getting about. I don't know anyone who's ever come close to being saved by a helmet. Wear one if you want, but if you insist on the rest of us wearing one you should also consider wearing one yourself when out walking, in the shower, doing DIY, being in a car, just being alive. Head injuries are as likely in those situations as on a bike yet it's only cycling that seems to attract the clamour from others for us all to fall into line and wear unnecessary safety equipment..
Because nobody dare stand up against the prevailing safety / no-risk culture and say y'know what I'm quite happy with this minimal risk. Insurers insist on it without any data to back up their insistence, and because quite a lot of people are quite happy wearing one (so am I sometimes; if I have to I will no problem) there's no clamour to say actually no we won't insist on helmets for this event.
I challenged (gently, no aggro) the organisers of one charity ride to as why they insist that helmets must be worn for a casual non-race amble round the countryside on a Sunday morning and was told they just do but anyone who didn't want to wear one could sign the waiver and do it with no problem. It's the prevailing culture - nobody dare say no, and before you know what's what it'll be law because some burk wants to take it a step further and force his own opinion on all of us, and suddenly any bike ride will require helmets to be worn by law, and that's not a good direction to go hence my disagreement and excessive posting on this subject. There's an alternative opinion, and it should be heard otherwise we'd be left with the view that hey everyone supports helmet wearing anyway, let's make it compulsory for all. No thanks.
-no insurance
-no road tax
-no mot of sorts for your bike.
Yet us mere motorists must make sure the cyclist is okay.
yet if one shoots a red light and we hit em, its our fault.
Bout time we made them contribute a small amount to our roads, since we make lanes etc for them. Also a helmet should be compulsory. whatever it does it may just protect you more than you might think.
sorry that's how I feel. we use the roads and pay you use the roads and don't? what makes a cyclist different to a car or motorbike?
From a report, how many more times must the likes of you be told,.....
ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED 74 YEARS AGO
Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. The ironically-named iPayRoadTax.com helps spread this message on cycle jerseys. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED. Many of those who believe road tax exists, want cyclists off the roads or, at least registered, but bicycle licensing is an expensive folly.
From a report, how many more times must the likes of you be told,.....
ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED 74 YEARS AGO
You're wasting your breath. It doesn't matter that there's no fee to use the roads, or that the guy in the Range Rover behind might have paid twice as much you or me but still doesn't have the right to run me out of his way, or that a cyclist might pay 40% income tax and live in a Band H rated Council Tax house, none of that matters just the £175 worth of VED that gives these numpties some tenuous argument about 'paying' for the roads. You couldn't make it up; sadly we don't have to as there are enough people about who don't have enough idea about how tax works.
Because nobody dare stand up against the prevailing safety / no-risk culture and say y'know what I'm quite happy with this minimal risk. Insurers insist on it without any data to back up their insistence, and because quite a lot of people are quite happy wearing one (so am I sometimes; if I have to I will no problem) there's no clamour to say actually no we won't insist on helmets for this event.
And to return the favour - exactly this.
Those people who think riders not wearing helmets is the main safety risk to cyclists should try getting on a bike and riding on the roads for a bit. I think you'd soon change your tune.
You're wasting your breath. It doesn't matter that there's no fee to use the roads, or that the guy in the Range Rover behind might have paid twice as much you or me but still doesn't have the right to run me out of his way, or that a cyclist might pay 40% income tax and live in a Band H rated Council Tax house, none of that matters just the £175 worth of VED that gives these numpties some tenuous argument about 'paying' for the roads. You couldn't make it up; sadly we don't have to as there are enough people about who don't have enough idea about how tax works.
Quite - it's a waste of time trying to educate some people.
It's the ignorance coupled with the attitude of entitlement that is sad.
"They" have paid for the roads.
"We" don't pay to use the roads.
"They" should make "us" pay to use the roads
"They" have made cycle lanes for "us".
To expand on this (thx Afterglow for the previous answer), why is it that 3 pages of posts with links to websites full of info about how helmets aren't that useful, a quote from a very experienced chap who concurred that helmet wearing doesn't mean no damage (and had a court agree), complete absence of any change to KSI where helmets are mandatory, that helmets are a weak standard that's only any good up to kids' speeds of about 12mph, and personal experience that says after 40-odd years of occasionally falling off bikes it's pretty clear to me that helmets don't make much difference, still people don't get it?
I'll say it again. If there was clear evidence that helmets make any appreciable difference I might wear one. There isn't, I've survived this far and so has everybody I went to school with, everybody I've worked with and everyone that I know who cycles for leisure, sport or just getting about. I don't know anyone who's ever come close to being saved by a helmet. Wear one if you want, but if you insist on the rest of us wearing one you should also consider wearing one yourself when out walking, in the shower, doing DIY, being in a car, just being alive. Head injuries are as likely in those situations as on a bike yet it's only cycling that seems to attract the clamour from others for us all to fall into line and wear unnecessary safety equipment..
And I hope you are never proved wrong because you don't wear a helmet when you are walking along the pavement or having a shower.
Why do you think that cyclists should wear helmets but pedestrians not when having pedestrians wear helmets would save more lives and serious injuries.
What? That the KSI stats, the laughably poor ISO standards for cycle helmets, the 40+ years & counting of not being bothered, that bloke in court from the Helmet Centre etc, that they all suddenly turn out to be wrong?
Nice of you to care but we'll never meet. People die unusual or boring deaths every day of the year; thanks for taking an interest in my well-being, but I'm quite relaxed about it.
I'm sorry, but comparing balancing through high speed traffic and walking on a pavement or standing in a bathtub is ridiculous. Cycling is BY FAR the more dangerous of the three and the more likely to go wrong. It may be different in other cities, but with hardly any cycle lanes in London it is a dangerous sport!
And I hope you are never proved wrong because you don't wear a helmet when you are walking along the pavement or having a shower.
Why do you think that cyclists should wear helmets but pedestrians not when having pedestrians wear helmets would save more lives and serious injuries.
Pedestrians have footpaths; cyclists are usually forced to contend with moving vehicles much more closely and are at significant risk. But hey, it's pretty clear you know much more than anyone on the subject so I'll leave it now. One challenge though: have this same conversation with a member of ambulance crew.
What? That the KSI stats, the laughably poor ISO standards for cycle helmets, the 40+ years & counting of not being bothered, that bloke in court from the Helmet Centre etc, that they all suddenly turn out to be wrong?
Nice of you to care but we'll never meet. People die unusual or boring deaths every day of the year; thanks for taking an interest in my well-being, but I'm quite relaxed about it.
It's not your wellbeing that bothers me, it's the well being of all those that read your comments and decide not to bother with a helmet.
I'm sorry, but comparing balancing through high speed traffic and walking on a pavement or standing in a bathtub is ridiculous. Cycling is BY FAR the more dangerous of the three and the more likely to go wrong. It may be different in other cities, but with hardly any cycle lanes in London it is a dangerous sport!
Pedestrians have footpaths; cyclists are usually forced to contend with moving vehicles much more closely and are at significant risk. But hey, it's pretty clear you know much more than anyone on the subject so I'll leave it now. One challenge though: have this same conversation with a member of ambulance crew.
You've both done it again.
Cycling isn't dangerous. That's all there is to it. If it was we wouldn't have been letting kids do it for the last 100 years or so and would have outlawed it to stop the endless death & mayhem that results from kids & adults alike riding their bikes to get from A to B. Except there isn't endless death & mayhem, because cycling is safe. It can go wrong occasionally but so can plenty of other things, yet amazingly we don't see a clamour for safety gear anywhere except cycling. Keep your wits about you, stay off motorways and busy dual c/ways and you'll be fine. And if you feel the need to wear a helmet go ahead and wear one one - nobody minds if you do. For some reason though anyone who opts not to has to defend that position as if cycling is the most wilfully dangerous thing anyone could choose to do. It isn't. Cycling is as safe as any other leisure & sporting pastime. People need to understand that.
Comments
I know people just scan read these posts and don't take on board the information, but the reality is that if you fall off your bike you'll damage your extremities - hands, knees, elbows. It's the nature of falling off a bike. If you're really unlucky you might land on your head but the simple act of landing on your head doesn't usually mean anything worse than a bit of a bump & maybe a scrape or two. Serious head injuries as a result of falling off a bike are less common than other head injuries such as falling down stairs, slipping in the shower etc. There are lots of opportunities to damage our heads but it's only cycling that' singled out as apparently so dangerous that anyone not wearing a helmet is apparently just asking to be killed.
Add to that the fact that helmets are only designed to provide protection at low speeds (12mph is the generally accepted number) and that most deaths & serious injuries are the result of injuries to the body not the head, and after a while you start to wonder why you ever bother to wear one. It helps that although I ride at some decent speeds it's virtually all rural.
This was interesting.
Following your argument it would make sense for all pedestrians to wear helmets as that would save more lives than making cyclists wear them.
I wear a helmet anyway, I just don't think it's as important as the media often portray. If I knew I was going to be in a collision I'd wear a helmet as a pedestrian.
You wear one. Please allow those of us who are happy with the perceived risk to carry on not bothering most of the time.
Neither do you.
Still, I do like how the laughable presumption that cyclists don't also drive still pervades the mindset of the entitled driver.
People seem to manage alright in plenty of other European cities without them.
You don't bother 'most of the time'. So why bother any of the time? Maybe a sneaking feeling that actually there is a chance it could make a difference?
There are some cycling events where wearing a helmet is a condition of entry.
And why do you think that is?
I'll say it again. If there was clear evidence that helmets make any appreciable difference I might wear one. There isn't, I've survived this far and so has everybody I went to school with, everybody I've worked with and everyone that I know who cycles for leisure, sport or just getting about. I don't know anyone who's ever come close to being saved by a helmet. Wear one if you want, but if you insist on the rest of us wearing one you should also consider wearing one yourself when out walking, in the shower, doing DIY, being in a car, just being alive. Head injuries are as likely in those situations as on a bike yet it's only cycling that seems to attract the clamour from others for us all to fall into line and wear unnecessary safety equipment..
I challenged (gently, no aggro) the organisers of one charity ride to as why they insist that helmets must be worn for a casual non-race amble round the countryside on a Sunday morning and was told they just do but anyone who didn't want to wear one could sign the waiver and do it with no problem. It's the prevailing culture - nobody dare say no, and before you know what's what it'll be law because some burk wants to take it a step further and force his own opinion on all of us, and suddenly any bike ride will require helmets to be worn by law, and that's not a good direction to go hence my disagreement and excessive posting on this subject. There's an alternative opinion, and it should be heard otherwise we'd be left with the view that hey everyone supports helmet wearing anyway, let's make it compulsory for all. No thanks.
From a report, how many more times must the likes of you be told,.....
ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED 74 YEARS AGO
Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. The ironically-named iPayRoadTax.com helps spread this message on cycle jerseys. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED. Many of those who believe road tax exists, want cyclists off the roads or, at least registered, but bicycle licensing is an expensive folly.
And to return the favour - exactly this.
Those people who think riders not wearing helmets is the main safety risk to cyclists should try getting on a bike and riding on the roads for a bit. I think you'd soon change your tune.
Quite - it's a waste of time trying to educate some people.
It's the ignorance coupled with the attitude of entitlement that is sad.
"They" have paid for the roads.
"We" don't pay to use the roads.
"They" should make "us" pay to use the roads
"They" have made cycle lanes for "us".
I hope you are never proved wrong.
And I hope you are never proved wrong because you don't wear a helmet when you are walking along the pavement or having a shower.
Why do you think that cyclists should wear helmets but pedestrians not when having pedestrians wear helmets would save more lives and serious injuries.
Nice of you to care but we'll never meet. People die unusual or boring deaths every day of the year; thanks for taking an interest in my well-being, but I'm quite relaxed about it.
Pedestrians have footpaths; cyclists are usually forced to contend with moving vehicles much more closely and are at significant risk. But hey, it's pretty clear you know much more than anyone on the subject so I'll leave it now. One challenge though: have this same conversation with a member of ambulance crew.
It's not your wellbeing that bothers me, it's the well being of all those that read your comments and decide not to bother with a helmet.
Good BBC piece about how the Dutch turned against the car culture, 40 years ago it was as bad there as in Britain.
Cycling isn't dangerous. That's all there is to it. If it was we wouldn't have been letting kids do it for the last 100 years or so and would have outlawed it to stop the endless death & mayhem that results from kids & adults alike riding their bikes to get from A to B. Except there isn't endless death & mayhem, because cycling is safe. It can go wrong occasionally but so can plenty of other things, yet amazingly we don't see a clamour for safety gear anywhere except cycling. Keep your wits about you, stay off motorways and busy dual c/ways and you'll be fine. And if you feel the need to wear a helmet go ahead and wear one one - nobody minds if you do. For some reason though anyone who opts not to has to defend that position as if cycling is the most wilfully dangerous thing anyone could choose to do. It isn't. Cycling is as safe as any other leisure & sporting pastime. People need to understand that.