Fabian Cancellara sparks helmet debate on Twitter, says all cyclists should wear one

Quince wrote:

One odd thing I've noticed is that people seem to either view helmets as holy life-saving miracles, or as UTTERLY worthless bits of foam.

Would a third option not be simply be to treat them in the same way we treat shinpads, or similar?

You've done it now, there's no sense or context allowed in helmet 'debates'!

BTW, yes, exactly.

I'm kind of happy to wear mine when MTBing, but not for utility cycling. I *expect* to knock into something during the former by headbutting a branch or whatever.

Previously I poked fun at those who advocated for helmets because their friend crashed while wearing one and so, of course, it must have saved them! However, I had never considered Philly's amazing experience that helmets had saved not just one mate, but a number of mates from head injuries. While one vague friend can easily be dismissed as an anecdote, Philly's "number of mates" have a clear statistical power that can not possibly be discounted.

Bravo to Philly for doing his bit to save heads. His neighbour would have cycled off to a certain death had not her eagle-eyed neighbour Phil spotted her and quickly run from his spot by his curtains and out the door to remind her that she'd forgotten her helmet.

I'm sure he also tells all his mates in the pub about the dangers of drinking without a helmet - alcohol being responsible for *far* more head injuries in our society than cycling. If it saves one head, a beer helmet surely is worth it? And Phil isn't the type of guy to be illogically singling out cyclists, oh no.

Go on, dashing Phil, you hero.

tomturcan: Quite. The EN1078:1997 standard is pretty pathetic. The Snell standard is a bit better. It's interesting to note that *no* helmet makers make safety claims in their marketing. They seem to be able to find improvements in aerodynamics, or weight, or style, etc., to trumpet, but never any improvements in safety. Kind of strange that, for a safety device, no?

Northernbike wrote:

has anyone from the 'helmet saved my life' brigade considered possibly learning how to ride a bike without falling off? it's not difficult, really it isn't

Sir - alas that particular bit of sanctimonious sniping has already been done a bit further up the thread. Do keep up please.

Matt eaton wrote:

Everyone needs a helmet. Where else would you put your helmet camera?

Yeah, strap on a lump that stabs you in the head if you crash.

Or put it on your handlebars.

A complicated, that one. Of course Cancellara is free to express his opinions, but he is also considered an "expert" with access to the mass-media, therefore an opinion maker. This makes the voice of contrarians even harder to be heard. His outrageous opinion should therefore be met with outrage. Australian cyclists are already paying the price for daft regulation. Fortunately, many replied to his blog with the necessary vigour. His next tweet will surely read: in Holland, no one wears helmets when cycling through town, and cycling accidents are the lowest worldwide. Why is that? Makes no sense to me.

Chrisc wrote:

In April I hit a stone wall descending at 40mph after getting into a speed wobble and slid 25 yards to a halt. Broken shoulder blade, collarbone, 6 ribs, dislocated shoulder and a broken/ground away Giro helmet. I can remember the impact and sliding down the tarmac with my helmet grinding.
I am thankful I was wearing it.

This said, I didn't wear a helmet on my first ride after the accident (almost 4 months later and still unable to ride a road bike) on my hybrid because it was a gentle pace to test things out.

I will always wear a helmet on a road bike where I am riding at speed but will continue to ride in a cap on my hybrid when going to the shops or similar.

I'm much the same. If I'm going out for the express purpose of riding my bike I'll put my lid on. Also at the BMX track or trails I always lid up (but not always at the skatepark or on street). If I'm going to the shops or similar I don't really want to have to carry an extra thing with me. It's already a point of pain to have to remove lights etc. and carry a heavy lock (which seems even heavier on the way home with a load of shopping).

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've always found 'cycling without falling off' quite an easy thing to do.

You ain't trying hard enough then boiy....

Paul J wrote:

tomturcan: Quite. The EN1078:1997 standard is pretty pathetic. The Snell standard is a bit better. It's interesting to note that *no* helmet makers make safety claims in their marketing. They seem to be able to find improvements in aerodynamics, or weight, or style, etc., to trumpet, but never any improvements in safety. Kind of strange that, for a safety device, no?

Well.... Kask make quite a thing of safety about their helmets in general, but then they come from a different direction and history to most helmet manufacturers. That aside I have to agree with you that it is certainly strange, bloody ridiculous really, that it is not front and centre in many claims.

a.jumper wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

Everyone needs a helmet. Where else would you put your helmet camera?

Yeah, strap on a lump that stabs you in the head if you crash.

Or put it on your handlebars.

Was there just the teeeeeenyist sense of humour failure there ?

fukawitribe wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've always found 'cycling without falling off' quite an easy thing to do.

You ain't drinking enough then boiy....

Edited this for accuracy.

fukawitribe wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've always found 'cycling without falling off' quite an easy thing to do.

You ain't trying hard enough then boiy....

I've always assumed that a detour via A&E would actually *slow* my progress to my destination.

Joeinpoole wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've always found 'cycling without falling off' quite an easy thing to do.

You ain't trying hard enough then boiy....

I've always assumed that a detour via A&E would actually *slow* my progress to my destination.

Who said anything about a destination ?

ChairRDRF wrote:

I yield to nobody in my admiration for Cancellara. Take a look at this, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXqQqAc2pA&feature=player_embedded.

Thing is - if he had to come to grief doing this, just how much good would a lid have done, and of course he would have been elss likely to do it lidless.

And should he actually be lecturing those of us who ride in urban areas with a far lower casualty level per time spent cycling than Tour de France riders, even in the UIK, let alone the Netherlands? On cyclist safety?

Exactly. Can I be alone in thinking that a nice wicker basket, mounted on the *front* of his bike, would have saved him from having to reach backwards into his jersey pockets too __ much safer. Mr Cancellara needs to demonstrate safe cycling in his own actions before lecturing anyone else.

Beaufort wrote:

Famously, Merckx & Hinault both died awful deaths racing on the road....except they didn't. Wear or don't wear, your call.

Well, look at you. Quite the rhetorical master.....it's not the riding it's the crashing. Just ask Casartelli and Wouters, oh, wait, you can't!

But I do agree with you. People seem to talk about safety in absolute terms, but you cannot legislate for it. I don't say you have to wear a helmet, but that you should do so by choice. You take a gamble when you don't, and less of one when you do.

I've never needed a helmet, and hopefully I never do. But I have no problem wearing one.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

[Well, look at you. Quite the rhetorical master.....it's not the riding it's the crashing. Just ask Casartelli and Wouters, oh, wait, you can't!

You mean Wouter Weylandts who died Giro? When he was wearing a crash helmet? There is (admittedly unresolved) argument about whether a lid would have saved Casartelli.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don't say you have to wear a helmet, but that you should do so by choice. You take a gamble when you don't, and less of one when you do.

Tell me, is walking to the shops without a helmet 'taking a gamble'? You could fall and hit your head on a pavement. A helmet might make a difference to the outcome.

This is where the ridiculousness of helmets and cycling really comes in. The 'if it saves one life' bollocks. The same is true for wearing helmets in cars, but it'll be a cold day in hell before any government in the world even suggests it's a good idea, let alone legislates for it. The disadvantages of doing so would be considered far in excess of the benefits.

The last serious crash I had, I hit the asphalt head first, I was going about 20mph. Glad I was wearing a helmet, don't really see the disadvantage of wearing one. I think it helped me this time.

tmz wrote:

The last serious crash I had, I hit the asphalt head first, I was going about 20mph. Glad I was wearing a helmet, don't really see the disadvantage of wearing one. I think it helped me this time.

They're dorky and uncomfortable, and if they're only saving me from gravel rash and other minor injuries, and had to use one every day to do so when I've not hit my head in several years and several crashes, I'd say the cure is worse than the disease.

But if your valuation of obviously subjective things like comfort is different, that's fine.

Just don't lie and say you know it saved your life, because you don't. And respect the fact that other people's opinion of things like "how dorky they are" is just as valid as yours.

Sorry but bollocks are the two sides as bad as each other - the helmet evangelists commit those sins (dodgy claims, refusing to admit some things are subjective) far more often than "helmet sceptics".