Helmets

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

No, it might suggest that those that wear helmets are involved in more accidents. Correlation is not causation. To say it's safer not to wear a helmet suggests that they were involved in accidents BECAUSE they were wearing a helmet

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I was trying to say that such data could be (mis)used to make a point that wasn't correct.

Marco_Panettone

ALL data gets used like that, sadly! It's like using short skirt data in rape cases.

Dave_C_2

I have just read this excellent piece about the expectation that cyclists must wear helmets.

This expectation does not extend to other activities with equally valid risks of head injury. For instance car driving, skiing and ice skating.
Well worth a read.

Dave

custardy

brat wrote: »

Some research has been done in London on the groups of cyclists who die as a consequence of being squashed by the left turning HGV, and most of them are cautious 'guarded' cyclists. When these cyclists are killed, the forces involved would smash through a helmet like jumping on a snail shell, so the helmet is going to be either irrelevent or useless.
I reckon a higher proportion of such 'guarded' cyclists will be helmeted, which may skew the figures to show helmets in a less good light than otherwise.
Similarly, I've not attended any cycle fatal accidents where the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, but most who cycle in our county without helmets don't cycle on open roads which is where most of our cycling accidents happen.

So a simple analysis of cycling accidents over the last 10 years in our county (and probably in London too) might suggest it's safer not to wear a helmet. But the data need to be looked at more closely.

My default is to wear my helmet, but if I'm popping into town to shop, I'll not bother. Awareness and visibility are much greater protectors.

Its one of the things I woder about with my 'accident' (AKA a taxi putting my life at less worth than 3 seconds)
my helmeted head smashed into the ground. So had I been left a fatal or with brain damage. it would have likely been presumed i simply fell off

skivenov

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Do you wear the same helmet for both, or do you accept a lower-spec helmet when doing 30mph on your pushbike? What is the difference?

If you don't know the differnce between a bike helmet and a motorbike helmet, you're probably not in a great position to be posting on this thread.

Personally, I've got a few braincells left, so I try to look after them.

mttylad

I prefer the type of helmet the kids on skateboards wear, all around ear protection rather than those stupid looking ones that give the impression they are reducing wind resistance etc.

Mind you I have not ridden my bike for a few years now. (time for a new one and some exercise methinks).

DCodd

I remember reading this http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=2250 a number of years ago. I have always worn a helmet since no matter where I ride.

Protective equipment always carries the risk of causing an alternate injury. However if the risk of the most serious injuries are reduced by wearing the equipment then it seems the most sensible thing to do is to wear the equipment.

Kennyboy66

Dave_C wrote: »

I have just read this excellent piece about the expectation that cyclists must wear helmets.

This expectation does not extend to other activities with equally valid risks of head injury. For instance car driving, skiing and ice skating.
Well worth a read.

Dave

Really ?

Almost all US & European ski schools make helmets mandatory for children.

Car drivers and passengers must wear seat belts - as even the most ardent libertarian must accept that they save lives. It was frequent at inquests 20 years ago to hear that the occupant of a a fatal car crash wasn't wearing a seat belt.

The death rate per mile in the UK for cyclists is 9 times that of car occupants (for motor cyclists it is 30 times car users).

That's probably why motor cycle helmets are compulsory and people whinged and moaned about having to wear them.

custardy

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Really ?

Almost all US & European ski schools make helmets mandatory for children.

Car drivers and passengers must wear seat belts - as even the most ardent libertarian must accept that they save lives. It was frequent at inquests 20 years ago to hear that the occupant of a a fatal car crash wasn't wearing a seat belt.

The death rate per mile in the UK for cyclists is 9 times that of car occupants (for motor cyclists it is 30 times car users).

That's probably why motor cycle helmets are compulsory and people whinged and moaned about having to wear them.

how many died in circumstances that helmets would have prevented?
without that,the comparison is pointless

kerby_crawler

custardy wrote: »

bike helmet mirrors have been around for yonks
many designs available

I wonder why I have never noticed any helmet mirrors in use. Is it because there are hardly any out there, or is it because they are so small as to be fairly ineffective?