Helmet fixation distracts from effective safety strategies says US professor

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Please allow me to remove your doubt: the helmet didn't save your life.

Helmets are supposed to work by compressing the expanded polystyrene, which absorbs quite a bit of energy, and if they crack or shatter, as yours did, they absorb very little energy; the more energy absorbed, the more protection they provide and yours provided almost none.  To demonstrate the point, take a ceiling tile or some expanded polystyrene packaging, and try to compress it with your fingers; hard isn't it.  Now try snapping it: easy isn't it.

The picture of your helmet shows no sign of compression deformation, it has simply snapped, and thus provided very little protection.  Experts in helmets have examined hundreds of them involved in collisions and found no evidence of compression, and there are thousands of pictures like yours on the web, all showing clearly that helmets don't work as intended, they fail catastrophically instead.

All neatly summed up here http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

So the compression of the polystyrene is the only way in which helmets work? No. There is also energy dissipation. A small force collision with a small area (eg a rock or the edge of a kerb) will produce very high levels of pressure at the point of impact, this can easily cause a skull fracture and a brain injury. If the force of collision is dissipated over a larger area by a helmet then the pressure becomes much reduced along with the likelihood of a skull fracture. So a cracked helmet doesn't prove that the helmet hasn't worked at all. It's absolutely impossible to tell this from just a picture, your certainty is merely a reflection of your own bias.

Actually, all the data supports what I say.  There are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories and pictures, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates rise, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a life-threatening collision by several billion times.  Which do you think is the more likely?

burtthebike wrote:

Actually, all the data supports what I say.  There are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories and pictures, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates rise, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a life-threatening collision by several billion times.  Which do you think is the more likely?

No it doesn't.
Look at the UK data.
Helmet wearing rates went up.
KSIs went down.
Serious head injuries went down.
The overall accident rate remained static.

Countries that introduce mandatory helmet laws aren't a good source of data as the risk profile of cyclists is likely altered by the law.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Actually, all the data supports what I say.  There are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories and pictures, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates rise, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a life-threatening collision by several billion times.  Which do you think is the more likely?

No it doesn't.
Look at the UK data.
Helmet wearing rates went up.
KSIs went down.
Serious head injuries went down.
The overall accident rate remained static.

Countries that introduce mandatory helmet laws aren't a good source of data as the risk profile of cyclists is likely altered by the law.

(courtesy of the excellent Tyler Vigen)

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Actually, all the data supports what I say.  There are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories and pictures, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates rise, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a life-threatening collision by several billion times.  Which do you think is the more likely?

No it doesn't. Look at the UK data. Helmet wearing rates went up. KSIs went down. Serious head injuries went down. The overall accident rate remained static. Countries that introduce mandatory helmet laws aren't a good source of data as the risk profile of cyclists is likely altered by the law.

(courtesy of the excellent Tyler Vigen)

Yay!  A graph!  This thread definitely needed a graph...

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Actually, all the data supports what I say.  There are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories and pictures, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates rise, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a life-threatening collision by several billion times.  Which do you think is the more likely?

No it doesn't. Look at the UK data. Helmet wearing rates went up. KSIs went down. Serious head injuries went down. The overall accident rate remained static. Countries that introduce mandatory helmet laws aren't a good source of data as the risk profile of cyclists is likely altered by the law.

LIAR, Look at the stats again, KSIs in cyclists have gone UP the last two years despite more infra, despite campaigns, despite better policing, despite increases in helmet wearing, and despite the fact there hasn't ben any increase in cycling as a modal share, you're lying agenda driven grub!

yYou also attribute any/all all of the reductions to helmets, you can't have it both ways sonshine, you again have ZERO evidence to prove that helmets prevented a single one of those KSIs. 

KSIs of cyclists went up compared to other modes as helmet wearing increased, I have a chart to show you from the government you lying pig headed gnome, where is yours?

2005-2009 Average compared to 2013, guess which year has the highest Seriously injured? Yeah, 2013, 31% higher than for the av of 05-09, each year increasing helmet use, some reports say around 45% at present.

Directly from the 2013 Gov annual report. 

"The number of seriously injured pedal cyclists also fell each year from 2000 to 2004, reaching a record low of 2,174 in 2004. Since then there has been an upward trend year on year up until 2012 when there were 3,222 seriously injured pedal cyclists, 48 per cent higher than the 2004 low"

Helmets in the pro ranks and for all competition cycling was mandated in 2005, have a little think about that fool!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

LIAR, Look at the stSIs in cyclists have gone UP the last two years despite more infra, despite campaigns, despite better policing, despite increases in helmet wearing, and despite the fact there hasn't ben any increase in cycling as a modal share, you're lying agenda driven grub!

yYou also attribute any/all all of the reductions to helmets, you can't have it both ways sonshine, you again have ZERO evidence to prove that helmets prevented a single one of those KSIs. 

KSIs of cyclists went up compared to other modes as helmet wearing increased, I have a chart to show you from the government you lying pig headed gnome, where is yours?

2005-2009 Average compared to 2013, guess which year has the highest Seriously injured? Yeah, 2013, 31% higher than for the av of 05-09, each year increasing helmet use, some reports say around 45% at present.

Directly from the 2013 Gov annual report. 

"The number of seriously injured pedal cyclists also fell each year from 2000 to 2004, reaching a record low of 2,174 in 2004. Since then there has been an upward trend year on year up until 2012 when there were 3,222 seriously injured pedal cyclists, 48 per cent higher than the 2004 low"

Helmets in the pro ranks and for all competition cycling was mandated in 2005, have a little think about that fool!

You're having a comprehension failure. Again.

Where are you getting your stats for UK helmet use for the last 2 years?

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Actually, all the data supports what I say.  There are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories and pictures, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates rise, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a life-threatening collision by several billion times.  Which do you think is the more likely?

No it doesn't. Look at the UK data. Helmet wearing rates went up. KSIs went down. Serious head injuries went down. The overall accident rate remained static. Countries that introduce mandatory helmet laws aren't a good source of data as the risk profile of cyclists is likely altered by the law.

Look at the data again then. The number of road crashes of all types in the UK is now far lower than it was even 10 years ago. Therefore, your analysis of one portion of those incidents, involving bicycles, is not correct.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Look at the data again then. The number of road crashes of all types in the UK is now far lower than it was even 10 years ago. Therefore, your analysis of one portion of those incidents, involving bicycles, is not correct.

That makes no sense. If we are looking for a correlation between helmet wearing rates increasing and cyclist KSIs decreasing (which Burtthebike claims doesn't exist) then what relevance is the accident rate for other road users?

AFAIK I don't think there are helmet wearing stats for the last ten years in the UK so drawing any conclusions based on that accident data will be impossible.

don simon wrote:

There were a few cockends out and about 

don’t you mean ‘helmets’?

don simon wrote:

Just for the record, my ride was sin helmet this morning. No injuries, I conclude that it is 100% safe to ride without a helmet.

There were a few cockends out and about in fluoro jackets. Can we ban these to stop cockendedness?

Well, if you will wear a sin helmet, you should think yourself lucky to get away with a few cockends.

risoto wrote:

There are statistics and then there are statistics!

I live in Denmark. Together with Holland we have the highest ownership and usage rates of bicycles. Cars are used to seeing cyclists everywhere, in the cities and many places outside, there are bike lanes along the highways. So biking is by definition safer here than in the US for example where a motorist is not used to seeing cyclists and probably ignorant of giving sufficient space when passing the rider.

In Denmark most cyclists wear a helmet in contrast to Holland. It's part of the accepted cycling culture.  I have no idea why the dutch don't use them. If you're hit by a car, the helmet will not save your life in most cases, eg turning lorries that can't see you. But it will reduce brain injuries and their severity.

My daughter was almost killed when a pedestrian stepped out on to the bike lane from the sidewalk while she was descending a 8% grade hill at probably 40 mph. She was almost killed. Wore no helmet. I have no doubt that a helmet would have limited the damages when her head smashed into the tarmac. She didn't move for 3 days and took 1½ years to recover completely. I have worn a helmet ever since.

Another simple example. A middle-aged lady falls off her bike going 10 mph. Her head hits the curb made of granite with sharp edges. She was paralysed for life. With a helmet nothing would have happened to her.

I get his point, it's not only down to the helmet to keep us safe, but it's also very naive to think that you can educate motorists in the US and elsewhere to be more careful or that more bike lanes or other government programs will help in any significant way.

You could argue the same with car seat belts. Be more carful in traffic, drive slower, safer roads etc. and you don't need the seat belt. Such a change in driving behavior is just as naive.

Conclusion: why not use it - it might just save you from sitting in a wheel chair for the rest of your life.

As others have pointed out, anecdotes do not equate to evidence. While it's possible that a helmet may have reduced the effects on your daughter or on the middle-aged lady, you have no way of confirming this.

However, you appear to have missed the point of the article. The very fact there is a focus on the potential benefits or lack thereof of helmets is taking time, effort and resources away from addressing the root cause of incidents leading to cyclists being killed or seriously injured in the first place.

Not only that, but the lack of helmet use is often used to pass blame onto cyclists who are killed or seriously injured and away from the person responsible for causing the incident in the first place, even in cases where the injuries are not head related.

You haven't provided any information regarding the rate of head injuries in Denmark vs the Netherlands as a result of helmet use, but let's assume for a second there is a lower rate in Denmark. The fact that both those countries have a lower KSI rate of cyclists than either the US or the UK suggests the debate over helmet use is a distraction and one that is costing lives. If we ever manage to lower our rates to that of Denmark or the Netherlands then I'd be more willing to discuss whether helmets could lower that figure further, but until then, I'd much prefer resources were put towards things that could make the biggest difference now.

risoto wrote:

There are statistics and then there are statistics!

I live in Denmark. Together with Holland we have the highest ownership and usage rates of bicycles. Cars are used to seeing cyclists everywhere, in the cities and many places outside, there are bike lanes along the highways. So biking is by definition safer here than in the US for example where a motorist is not used to seeing cyclists and probably ignorant of giving sufficient space when passing the rider.

In Denmark most cyclists wear a helmet in contrast to Holland. It's part of the accepted cycling culture.  I have no idea why the dutch don't use them. If you're hit by a car, the helmet will not save your life in most cases, eg turning lorries that can't see you. But it will reduce brain injuries and their severity.

My daughter was almost killed when a pedestrian stepped out on to the bike lane from the sidewalk while she was descending a 8% grade hill at probably 40 mph. She was almost killed. Wore no helmet. I have no doubt that a helmet would have limited the damages when her head smashed into the tarmac. She didn't move for 3 days and took 1½ years to recover completely. I have worn a helmet ever since.

Another simple example. A middle-aged lady falls off her bike going 10 mph. Her head hits the curb made of granite with sharp edges. She was paralysed for life. With a helmet nothing would have happened to her.

I get his point, it's not only down to the helmet to keep us safe, but it's also very naive to think that you can educate motorists in the US and elsewhere to be more careful or that more bike lanes or other government programs will help in any significant way.

You could argue the same with car seat belts. Be more carful in traffic, drive slower, safer roads etc. and you don't need the seat belt. Such a change in driving behavior is just as naive.

Conclusion: why not use it - it might just save you from sitting in a wheel chair for the rest of your life.

That's pretty impressive missing of the finer points that have gone before.

1: yeah, helmets prevent some injuries. But which and how many is entirely uncertain. Maybe, if you're a materials scientist and medical doctor, your opinion about what happened to you or those you know while wearing a helmet, or not, has some qualification. But it's much more likely to be shaped by confirmation bias and a lack of detailed understanding about what actually happened.

What I am certain about is that they do not save anywhere near as many cases as the proportion of 'helmet saved my life' stories that appear on threads like this, would suggest.

2: yeah, why not, let's all wear helmets. What harm can that do?

Well, quite a lot, actually, if unintended consequences concerning
- increase in the fear factor,
- decrease in cyclist numbers
- and how much less safe we all are when there are fewer of us around
are anything to go by.

That's before we get into more contentious arguments about how safe the helmets themselves are, and risk compensation.

3: this fella also lives in Denmark, and seems to disagree with your points. If my words don't convince you to reconsider, have a read of his superior ones: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2017/01/bike-helmets-something-rotten-denma...

Conclusion: if us all wearing helmets results in fewer cyclists, which in turn raises the chance that a driver hits me, THAT makes it more likely that I'll spend the rest of my life in a wheelchair.

risoto wrote:

In Denmark most cyclists wear a helmet in contrast to Holland.

No they don't "Current helmet wearing rates in Copenhagen are at 11%" 

This article is well worth reading and applies 100% to the UK, with disinformation, dodgy stats and emotional blackmail, just like your post.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2017/01/bike-helmets-something-rotten-denma...

Denmark, home of the Safety Nannies.

risoto wrote:

There are statistics and then there are statistics!

I live in Denmark. Together with Holland we have the highest ownership and usage rates of bicycles. Cars are used to seeing cyclists everywhere, in the cities and many places outside, there are bike lanes along the highways. So biking is by definition safer here than in the US for example where a motorist is not used to seeing cyclists and probably ignorant of giving sufficient space when passing the rider.

In Denmark most cyclists wear a helmet in contrast to Holland. It's part of the accepted cycling culture.  I have no idea why the dutch don't use them. If you're hit by a car, the helmet will not save your life in most cases, eg turning lorries that can't see you. But it will reduce brain injuries and their severity.

My daughter was almost killed when a pedestrian stepped out on to the bike lane from the sidewalk while she was descending a 8% grade hill at probably 40 mph. She was almost killed. Wore no helmet. I have no doubt that a helmet would have limited the damages when her head smashed into the tarmac. She didn't move for 3 days and took 1½ years to recover completely. I have worn a helmet ever since.

Another simple example. A middle-aged lady falls off her bike going 10 mph. Her head hits the curb made of granite with sharp edges. She was paralysed for life. With a helmet nothing would have happened to her.

I get his point, it's not only down to the helmet to keep us safe, but it's also very naive to think that you can educate motorists in the US and elsewhere to be more careful or that more bike lanes or other government programs will help in any significant way.

You could argue the same with car seat belts. Be more carful in traffic, drive slower, safer roads etc. and you don't need the seat belt. Such a change in driving behavior is just as naive.

Conclusion: why not use it - it might just save you from sitting in a wheel chair for the rest of your life.

In the US and Canada and other motor centric countries (Australia and indeed the UK)  cycle helmet use has increased and yet injury rates have not gone down as a consequence of that. There is no evidence that helmets work, how many more times! The stats from New York one of the busiest and most dangerous cities in the world on the roads they found the complete opposite once helmet use increased.

Yours and others way of thinking is massively flawed becvause you won't accept the reasons why helmets are not effective. 

Conclusion: why not use a helmet in ALL circumstances, particularly driving, walking and sporting activities - it might just save you from sitting in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, oh wait, it can't physically do that nor indeed does statistically and in some activities it is proven to be massively detrimental. Cycling, boxing, gridiron are three for a start off.

risoto wrote:

 

I get his point, it's not only down to the helmet to keep us safe, but it's also very naive to think that you can educate motorists in the US and elsewhere to be more careful or that more bike lanes or ot

 

Well, America is the country where one gets serious calls for schools to have armed gaurds or school kids to have compulsory bullet-proof vests, so I don't know that what goes on there should be taken as a model for anywhere elsee.  It might indeed be impossible for anything to ever improve in that country because its political system is irredemiably broken, but what does that have to do with the rest of us?

risoto wrote:

In Denmark most cyclists wear a helmet in contrast to Holland. It's part of the accepted cycling culture.  I have no idea why the dutch don't use them. If you're hit by a car, the helmet will not save your life in most cases, eg turning lorries that can't see you. But it will reduce brain injuries and their severity.

No they don't.

Maybe a greater proportion  wear one than in the Netherlands (but I've not seen actual figures) but the vast majority of cyclists in Denmark do not wear helmets.

As for your example middle aged lady scenario - I saw almost exactly that in Copenhagen in December except without major injury - the lady cycling probably between 10 and 15kph, had a handbag in her basket and it became caught in her front wheel causing her to go head first over the handlebars onto the paving. We went to her aid and she was neither concussed not badly injured despite the head impacting on concrete. After a short while to recover, som help from me to make her bike rideable and advice to get her injury checked she was on her way, still without a helmet, but with her safety assured this time by stowing her bag securely.

risoto wrote:

There are statistics and then there are statistics!

I live in Denmark. Together with Holland we have the highest ownership and usage rates of bicycles. Cars are used to seeing cyclists everywhere, in the cities and many places outside, there are bike lanes along the highways. So biking is by definition safer here than in the US for example where a motorist is not used to seeing cyclists and probably ignorant of giving sufficient space when passing the rider.

In Denmark most cyclists wear a helmet in contrast to Holland. It's part of the accepted cycling culture.  I have no idea why the dutch don't use them. If you're hit by a car, the helmet will not save your life in most cases, eg turning lorries that can't see you. But it will reduce brain injuries and their severity.

My daughter was almost killed when a pedestrian stepped out on to the bike lane from the sidewalk while she was descending a 8% grade hill at probably 40 mph. She was almost killed. Wore no helmet. I have no doubt that a helmet would have limited the damages when her head smashed into the tarmac. She didn't move for 3 days and took 1½ years to recover completely. I have worn a helmet ever since.

Another simple example. A middle-aged lady falls off her bike going 10 mph. Her head hits the curb made of granite with sharp edges. She was paralysed for life. With a helmet nothing would have happened to her.

I get his point, it's not only down to the helmet to keep us safe, but it's also very naive to think that you can educate motorists in the US and elsewhere to be more careful or that more bike lanes or other government programs will help in any significant way.

You could argue the same with car seat belts. Be more carful in traffic, drive slower, safer roads etc. and you don't need the seat belt. Such a change in driving behavior is just as naive.

Conclusion: why not use it - it might just save you from sitting in a wheel chair for the rest of your life.

Well there are helmets and there are helmets. The one I use for BMX racing is a road legal MX type motorcycle helmet. It offers a lot of protection. If you ahve one of those plastic and foam shell type things with holes in, I'm sorry but you're deluding yourself if you think it offers you any proper protection.

I wear my BMX helmet when I'm racing and training because it's required and also because the sport is by its very nature, risky.

I don't wear a helmet when I'm commuting on my bicycle because it's not and it's not.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Well there are helmets and there are helmets. The one I use for BMX racing is a road legal MX type motorcycle helmet. It offers a lot of protection. If you ahve one of those plastic and foam shell type things with holes in, I'm sorry but you're deluding yourself if you think it offers you any proper protection.

I wear my BMX helmet when I'm racing and training because it's required and also because the sport is by its very nature, risky.

I don't wear a helmet when I'm commuting on my bicycle because it's not and it's not.

As you say, there are helmets and helmets. Back in the day, I used to design integrated display helmets for the miltary. In terms of protection, pilot's helmets need to meet two basic criteria, impact, and penetration. Penetration protection needs a hard shell (eg Kevlar), and impact protection needs shock absorption. Same for your road legal motorcycle helmet.  The cycle industry decided for whatever reason, that our risk comes from impact (hitting a smooth object) rather than penetration (hitting a sharp object), which is why we wear what is basically a bit of padding. Whether, as you put it, this offers "proper" protection, depends on what you are going to hit!

Griff500 wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Well there are helmets and there are helmets. The one I use for BMX racing is a road legal MX type motorcycle helmet. It offers a lot of protection. If you ahve one of those plastic and foam shell type things with holes in, I'm sorry but you're deluding yourself if you think it offers you any proper protection.

I wear my BMX helmet when I'm racing and training because it's required and also because the sport is by its very nature, risky.

I don't wear a helmet when I'm commuting on my bicycle because it's not and it's not.

As you say, there are helmets and helmets. Back in the day, I used to design integrated display helmets for the miltary. In terms of protection, pilot's helmets need to meet two basic criteria, impact, and penetration. Penetration protection needs a hard shell (eg Kevlar), and impact protection needs shock absorption. Same for your road legal motorcycle helmet.  The cycle industry decided for whatever reason, that our risk comes from impact (hitting a smooth object) rather than penetration (hitting a sharp object), which is why we wear what is basically a bit of padding. Whether, as you put it, this offers "proper" protection, depends on what you are going to hit!

FACT: when the English British 'Tommy' started wearing the good old Brodie helmet in WWI (as opposed to a cap) it increased head injuries/injuries overall, the overall effect was worse and it costs more money and takes more manpower/resources to recover/treat an injured soldier than it does for a dead one in those situations.

Given the nature of the environment this is hardly a surprising outcome after the fact but I'm sure at the time and as with cycle helmet advocates they truly believe/d that it was going to help matters. The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Don't forget the headteachers who are banning their students from cycling to or from school unless they're wearing a helmet.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Don't forget the headteachers who are banning their students from cycling to or from school unless they're wearing a helmet.

Where did any of these people say that helmets are the solution? Quote please?

What I think reasonable people are saying (and by reasonable I exclude the compusory wearing advocates), is that a bit of polystyrene between you and a hard object might just make a difference in some cases.  Of course it won't compensate for mass driver education or segregation, but these aint going to happen anytime soon for the majority of us.

Griff500 wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Don't forget the headteachers who are banning their students from cycling to or from school unless they're wearing a helmet.

Where did any of these people say that helmets are the solution? Quote please?

What I think reasonable people are saying (and by reasonable I exclude the compusory wearing advocates), is that a bit of polystyrene between you and a hard object might just make a difference in some cases.  Of course it won't compensate for mass driver education or segregation, but these aint going to happen anytime soon for the majority of us.

 

I think that's the point though, they aren't being reasonable if the evidence doesn't support the idea that a helmet offers protection, or that the potential adverse effects of wearing a helmet aren't considered also.

With respect to mass driver education or segregation, they may not happen anytime soon, but by focusing on helmet use as a solution, if not the solution to safety, these things are likely to take even longer to arrive. That was the point of the article.

Griff500 wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Don't forget the headteachers who are banning their students from cycling to or from school unless they're wearing a helmet.

Where did any of these people say that helmets are the solution? Quote please?

What I think reasonable people are saying (and by reasonable I exclude the compusory wearing advocates), is that a bit of polystyrene between you and a hard object might just make a difference in some cases.  Of course it won't compensate for mass driver education or segregation, but these aint going to happen anytime soon for the majority of us.

 

If a headteacher sent a letter to you, saying that on Monday, your kid's bike would be confiscated if they didn't wear a helmet, would you

a) need a quote from them quantifying, to two decimal places, how much of a solution they consider helmets to be, in order to clarify their exact position or

b) infer exactly where their priorities lie, and take the lack of justification of their stance in the letter to confirm their approach to be dogmatic?

If you answered mostly a) congratulations! You are Griff500 and breeze through life, seeking to take words at face value over unreasonable actions. 

If you answered mostly b) uh-oh, you are the cynical bastard that is davel, and are doomed to judge people by their actions until one day being sucked into an unstable wormhole created by Rich_cb correlating the number of visitors to Uluru with the number of Argentinian radio broadcasters called Mario. And it'll serve your dark heart right. 

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Don't forget the headteachers who are banning their students from cycling to or from school unless they're wearing a helmet.

Where did any of these people say that helmets are the solution? Quote please?

What I think reasonable people are saying (and by reasonable I exclude the compusory wearing advocates), is that a bit of polystyrene between you and a hard object might just make a difference in some cases.  Of course it won't compensate for mass driver education or segregation, but these aint going to happen anytime soon for the majority of us.

 

If a headteacher sent a letter to you, saying that on Monday, your kid's bike would be confiscated if they didn't wear a helmet, would you......

Firstly, I'd probably seek legal advice as I suspect he is stepping well outside his remit, but that is not the point I was making.  There are a lot of people on here who seem only able to hold one idea in their head at a time: ie If  Iget hit by a driver at 60mph a helmet won't help, so lets educate drivers and campaign for segregation and not encourage our kids to wear helmets. Here is an idea, why not do both?

A couple of days ago you said on this thread "Yeah, helmets prevent some injuries"  You have also said that helmet encoyragement overall is harmful. Let me ask you, do you have kids, and if so, based on the two views you have expressed, do you encourage your own kids to wear?