A cyclist who was run down by a recycling truck and narrowly avoided being killed has said a shared a graphic photo online of his mangled helmet online could warn others of the dangers of riding without one.
Ben Hobbs, 46, was riding to work near his home in Devon in March when he was hit by the truck. He was knocked off and suffered a broken spine, broken ribs, broken sternum and a head injury.
The photo of the Specialized Echelon helmet has since been shared more than 30 million times and sparked intense debate online.
He told the Western Daily News: "It's quite surprising that the image has had such an impact. It has been shared around the county and I'm really grateful for that.
"I've heard cyclists say that helmets are not the be all and end all because they only cover certain places but the helmet certainly worked for me."
He said: "I don't know what speed I was going at when the driver cut across in front of me but I didn't have time to stop.
"I was on my way to work and it was about 9am when the accident happened. There were a few people who stopped to help and a fantastic first aider who had to stop me from trying to get up.
"People kept telling me that I was in a mess but I didn't know what was going on. I kept trying to get up and I didn't know I had a serious spinal injury.
"I don't remember much but the first thing I can clearly remember is being in the ambulance. In the hospital I still didn't accept that it had happened to me and kept trying to get out of bed in the night.
"By day three a nurse sat down with me and said you've broken your back and you need to stay in bed."
The father of two is still recovering rom his injuries at home.
He said: "My head injury was right on the top of my head. The helmet has done the job for me.
"I'm a good rider and I'm confident. Nothing like this has happened to me before and I've been riding since I was four or five.
"I ride about 6,000 miles a year in Devon and commute to work everyday which is about 13 miles. I had just finished doing a complete overhaul of my bike and it was in 100 per cent condition.
"You've got no control of what will happen when you are on the roads. As a cyclist I make a balanced decision and go by the theory that you need to expect the unexpected. You don't know what people are going to do."
Mark Walker, a first responder for South Western Ambulance Service, shared the photo on his Facebook page after he was sent it by a colleague.
He said: "He is a lucky man. If it had been his head that had hit the van he wouldn't be here today. He was wearing the helmet in the correct position and it took the pressure of the impact.
"This is a powerful image and that shows the importance of wearing a helmet when cycling on the road."
133 thoughts on “Photo of mangled helmet shared more than 30 million times after cyclist walks away from crash”
“This is a powerful image and
“This is a powerful image and that shows the importance of wearing a helmet when cycling on the road.”
Rubbish. What this accident shows is that we need better infrastructure for cyclists and harsher penalties for bell-end drivers.
Quote:The photo of the
Missed all that, really dodged a bullet there!
As Chris Boardman pointed
As Chris Boardman pointed out, helmets are a red herring in terms of the safety of cyclists. It’s the big fecking truck that broke your spine, your ribs and your sternum that is important, not the polystyrene hat.
I don’t really see this as an
I don’t really see this as an “either/or” situation. I want both. I’ll continue to wear my helmet while asking for better infrastructure.
I don’t really see this as an
I don’t really see this as an “either/or” helmet vs. better driving and infrastructure situation. I want both. I’ll continue to wear my helmet while asking for better infrastructure.
“This is a powerful image and
“This is a powerful image and that shows the importance of wearing a helmet when cycling on the road.”
We don’t just need protection from helmets, we need the government to start doing something for cyclists too. They keep telling us to get on our bikes but they build nothing and do nothing to encourage those people who are afraid of going on the Uk’s roads.
Over 30 million shares of the Specialized Echelon helmet – Specialized will be happy with the free ad.
Might be slightly quicker to
Might be slightly quicker to put on a helmet, than wait for ‘better infrastructure for cyclists and harsher penalties for bell-end drivers’.
But don’t wear one if you don’t want to.
atgni wrote:Might be slightly
Personally I use a St.Christopher medallion. It’s just as effective. But hey, don’t wear one if you don’t want.
P.s. I wear a helmet in the shower and when I’m going up and down the stairs too. If you care about your head you may want to consider doing that too. But I’m not going to force you. Oh no. It’s your choice. But, please, think of the children?
Ush wrote:atgni wrote:Might
LOL – waste of characters!
Dipstick!
Dipstick!
Of course Mike, that’s the
Of course Mike, that’s the answer. Be thankful that you live in a country where you’re still free to make your own idiotic choices. Meanwhile the many of the rest of us will take simple, basic precautions to ensure we do our bit for our own personal safety rather than holding out our hands and expecting the government to do it for us.
ned68201 wrote:Of course
Who linked to Road.CC from the Daily Mail?
…and where’s the ‘downvote’ button when you need it?
FFS.
I’ve been riding the London
I’ve been riding the London roads, and many more besides, for over 20 years. Never worn a helmet and never will.
Idiotic choices, I think not.
Of course Mike, that’s the
Of course Mike, that’s the answer. Be thankful that you live in a country where you’re still free to make your own idiotic choices. Meanwhile the many of the rest of us will take simple, basic precautions to ensure we do our bit for our own personal safety rather than holding out our hands and expecting the government to do it for us.
Did the helmet really save or
Did the helmet really save or prevent anything?
I’d say once it had been burst open due the weight of a truck bearing down on it, it wasn’t protecting from any impact at all.
You could argue that there is a slim chance that it could still protect from abrasions once it had failed but we know that in this instance it really, really didn’t:
https://twitter.com/AsEasyAsRiding/status/593329369344512000
I hope the guys recovers fully, and he did have a lucky escape, but it had cock all to do with his helmet.
farrell wrote:Did the helmet
From the photo, it looks as though the impact far exceeded the capabilities of the helmet, and instead of squashing to absorb energy it broke apart. The unreasoned, emotive nature of such helmet posts makes me wish that basic scientific and statistical training was compulsory in secondary schools.
Could we debate the lack of
Could we debate the lack of body armour rather than the helmet, just for novelty? I mean, broken spine, anyone?
Quote:Might be slightly
Might be quicker, but wouldn’t appear to be any more effective because helmets don’t stop cyclists dying, and the research and the evidence for this is available to you, sat there, on your computer.
…it’s a helmet thread, it will be full of all the usual clichés and I’ve worn them and not worn them for a very long time and I know that a picture of a crushed piece of polystyrene is easier to post than any sensible nuanced comment on the facts.
Mangled helmet debate
Mangled helmet debate continues with people saying the same thing more than 30 million times after road.cc posts more helmet clickbait.
Maybe the driver took the
Maybe the driver took the chance to cut across him because he saw the cyclist was wearing a helmet and would therefore be safe. Risk Compensation and all that…
related:
Jeez someone needs to tell these mad dutch folk to get helmeted up pronto
Notice that they’re not only
Notice that they’re not only not wearing helmets (no need) but they’re also not wearing lycra.
“the driver cut across in
“the driver cut across in front of me but I didn’t have time to stop”
helmet mitigates the consequence of bad driving
live in the land of mandatory helmets
bad driving is the problem
my message don’t patch it – fix it
Well, there is nothing more I
Well, there is nothing more I can add. I am a wearer, this is why. Each to their own.
Anecdote is not evidence.
If
Anecdote is not evidence.
If tomorrow he claims to be Jesus do you believe him then as well?
I had two accidents this
I had two accidents this winter on the ice, and both times I hit my helmeted head hard; first time no damage to anything, second time broke my wrist. Have always worn a helmet, and I know all the arguments for and against. Why are these threads so annoying? Don’t make wearing them compulsory, but is there really any benefit in not wearing them?
Daveyraveygravey wrote:I had
Interesting the way that nobody ever mentions risk compensation: one of the reasons that whole population studies show zero , minimal or even negative benefits is that wearers (and possibly other road users) change their behaviour.
That shouldn’t mean that people should be prevented from wearing them, in my view. But it does mean that we might get away from the red herring that is helmet advocacy. That would be a “benefit”.
Take a look at http://www.ccyclehelmets.org for evidence, and a brief summary of the evidence from New Zealand here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/
People still debating the
People still debating the helmet didn’t help, dig the sand away before your eyes! They do help! And no they wont stop every cycling death, but why wouldn’t u wear one, do u think your not sexy wearing one? Well u aren’t sexy in a hospital bed or a coffin!
I’ll keep it simple,
I’ll keep it simple, ‘Bollocks’.
It looks like the oncoming
It looks like the oncoming Dutch cyclists are about to take out that woman in white going left to right; she needs a helmet!
I wear a helmet, mostly, not
I wear a helmet, mostly, not always. I went over on the ice this winter and my helmet saved me from a bang on the head that would have hurt, and that’s all its designed to do, but grateful as I am I still don’t expect a bit of polystyrene to save from some fuckwit driver running me over. Education and proper legislation is what’s needed, cycle awareness in the driving test, that might actually help.
Just want to say, I like the
Just want to say, I like the attitude of the rider involved.
Don’t ware a helmet if you want – but I’ll never understand the veracity of the ‘anit-helmet’ brigade.
WRONG. The smashing of the helmet will have absorbed some of the impact. Yes the impact exceeded the capabilities of the helmet, but the helmet still did its job as it was being smashed.
If I am going to take that impact to the head – I’ll prefer to have a helmet, even if the helmet cannot absorb the complete impact. I wonder how many of the ‘anit-helmet’ brigade would seriously prefer to take that blow to the naked head?
No. NOT Related at all.
If I was riding a sit-up-and-beg bike, like those in the picture, on flat terrain at the relaxed pace they will be riding at … then I would not ware a helmet either. In that environment, it probably is unnecessary.
But – this guy was riding a road bike round Devon country roads…. totally different environment, and totally different speeds.
Must be Mad wrote:Just want
WRONG. The smashing of the helmet will have absorbed some of the impact. Yes the impact exceeded the capabilities of the helmet, but the helmet still did its job as it was being smashed.
If I am going to take that impact to the head – I’ll prefer to have a helmet, even if the helmet cannot absorb the complete impact. I wonder how many of the ‘anit-helmet’ brigade would seriously prefer to take that blow to the naked head?
No. NOT Related at all.
If I was riding a sit-up-and-beg bike, like those in the picture, on flat terrain at the relaxed pace they will be riding at … then I would not ware a helmet either. In that environment, it probably is unnecessary.
But – this guy was riding a road bike round Devon country roads…. totally different environment, and totally different speeds.
Wow, so not only does polystyrene have the capability of protecting your head from the full weight of a truck (despite falling apart instantly) but Dutch bikes also have magic properties that means that means that they ward off the possibilities of even having an accident.
Must be Mad wrote:
Don’t ware
That’s truer than you’ll ever know.
When a helmet breaks instead of crushes it absorbs a miniscule amount of energy. Helmets are only useful for very simple, specific low-speed falls not involving other vehicles. In that situation they are good at preventing cuts and tears to the scalp. They are not useful in the prevention of brain damage.
While you obviously know it all, there might be a tiny bit of information out there which contradicts your certainty.
There, fixed that for you. Probably to no avail. Carry on in your ignorance please.
Ush wrote:
There, fixed that
Yawn.
For those who doesn’t wear
For those who doesn’t wear helmets. Only you will regret it and suffer when you do get into some kind of accidents. No one else.
But hey you might regret it then but who cares you probably brain damaged enough to be a veg or dead.
Helmet row aside – thirty
Helmet row aside – thirty million shares ? That doesn’t sound credible to me. Where did they get that from ?
Helmet row aside – thirty
Helmet row aside – thirty million shares ? That doesn’t sound credible to me. Where did they get that from ?
Only yesterday in Melbourne,
Only yesterday in Melbourne, the first place to have a helmet law and strictly enforced, I was tootling along a bike trail through paddocks by the river and stopping to look at where famous artists had painted.
I was effectively doing an art tour but people on fast bikes kept staring and giving dirty looks over my lack of a helmet.
The only other cyclists were going really fast.
Thats what helmets do to your thinking.
The mindset is changed so that all you see out riding are those that ride with the assumption cycling is a high-risk sport that therefore needs protective equipment.
Many of the accidents where its claimed the helmet saved their lives were influenced by that change of mindset and it is a good bet that they were riding accordingly.
Quote:For those who doesn’t
1. Do some finger-wagging moralising.
2. Feel you’re winning the argument by imagining the people who disagree with you with brain damage.
Not cool.
HarrogateSpa wrote:Quote:For
1. …..
2. Not arguing. Only when you are dead or hmm near dead then it is one of those I told you so thing.
Again its your life not mine. Do what you like to do. Yes what I say is not cool but most things that is not pleasant are not cool.
Like someone point out and I noticed too that most cyclists in the city of London wear a helmet so most people do care about their lives and believe it does do something.
As I always say on the helmet
As I always say on the helmet debate.
Cycling without a helmet is absolutely fine, it is hitting your head on the pavement where the problems start.
I always wear a helmet, I
I always wear a helmet, I can’t understand how you pretend you’re in the pro-peleton without one…
Ridiculous! If his head had
Ridiculous! If his head had been in the helmet, it would also have been mangled. The helmet obviously came off and got mangled afterwards. Intriguing is who tried to sell this hoax.
Very interesting. Wear a
Very interesting. Wear a helmet, or don’t. Who should really care other than you? Unless it becomes law.
I dispair, does anyone really
:”( I dispair, does anyone really care if you do or do not wear a helmet?
It’s your head protect it as you see fit, helmet or not! Some of the nonscience makes me smile though on both sides, this is obviously a network of people with immense knowledge of impact protection and perceived risk taking. Brilliant!! =))
I am curious to hear how the
I am curious to hear how the helmet protected his back.
I am curious how the lesson from this incident is “Cyclists should wear helmets”, when it wouldn’t have prevented this incident or this person’s injuries, and when other countries avoid such incidents much more effectively by ensuring cyclists are separated from HGVs as much as possible by building cycling infrastructure and restricting access of larger HGVs in many of the more dense urban areas.
I am reminded of another person who suffered serious injuries on a bicycle and now goes around arguing for helmets. Comment via my blog:
http://paul.jakma.org/2012/06/20/helmet-no-protection/
In the UK this emotive, non-empirical, non-evidence based approach to safety – of which the helmet obsession is a symptom – is helping to *block* the _real_ safety measures. As such, this idiotic approach to safety, embodied by the helmet obsessives, is *killing* people.
How the hell is the title of
How the hell is the title of the article “walks away from crash” when he BROKE HIS SPINE, broke his sternum, and suffered a head injury?!!??!?!?! 😕 #o ~X(
A better title would’ve been, ‘lived to tell the tale’.
To all of the people who say
To all of the people who say ‘I wear a helmet’
Do you wear it walking? Do you wear it going down stairs? Do you wear it in the car?
No, even though those activities would benefit equally from wearing a helmet.
And anyway, this isn’t about YOU, this is about the helmet companies wanting legislation which would in turn put people off of casual cycling as a means of transport, leading to more obesity and CO2 emissions.
kie7077 wrote:To all of the
Laura Ashley would have been saved by wearing a helmet? Maybe Robert Atkins would have lived as well?
If only the pro-helmeters had spoken to them first!! Oh the huge manatee!
kie7077 wrote:
And anyway,
Conspiracy theory much. Is this really the depth of your thought process on such a serious subject?
RTB wrote:kie7077 wrote:
And
Conspiracy theory much. Is this really the depth of your thought process on such a serious subject?— kie7077
you mean like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3557721.stm – Race ace backs cycle helmet law
‘I’m a good rider’ and ‘you
‘I’m a good rider’ and ‘you need to expect the unexpected’ seem slightly at odds with ‘I don’t know how fast I was going and I didn’t have time to stop’.
People should take
People should take responsibility for themselves, and not expect others to take the strain. The only strangers I care about are non human.
Wow Birzzles. You must have
Wow Birzzles. You must have loads of friends.
Quote:The only strangers I
I’ve seen videos about that and I’m sure it’s illegal outside the Isle of Wight.
crikey wrote:Quote:The only
I think it might be legal in Norfolk too.
OldRidgeback wrote:crikey
I think it might be legal in Norfolk too.
I think it’s a legal requirement in Norfolk.
I am astonished by some of
I am astonished by some of the retarded thinking that is within many comments above about, to effect of ” well his helmet didn’t stop him breaking his back” and so on. I ride road and have raced mtb downhill and taken many knocks to the head over the years . Batting my head off a rock at 20mph I suspect would have badly fractured my skull and most probably killed me. I had a decent helmet on , I am still here. Like the bloke featured, he lives to tell the tail and will hopefully make a full recovery, without the helmet ….who knows. When I was 6 years old a kid in my street fell off his bike pootling along….his head hit the kerb and he died. At slow speed like that I strongly believe he would have been fine if wearing a helmet. What is so wrong with wearing one anyway?!?….grow up and act like an adult I say to those who don’t ..or have deluded sense that it is little use . Good luck
Migstu, why do you think that
Migstu, why do you think that helmet debates are a recurring feature on cycling websites?
Do you think that half the people are stupid and half the people are right or do you think that just maybe, perhaps, possibly the debate is a little more nuanced and subtle than ‘if you don’t wear one you’ll die’?
Crikey, I think these debates
Crikey, I think these debates are rather surprising as in london and out on the roads outside most cyclists I see are wearing helmets . It seems that it’ is a minority who are vocal in putting forward alternative views. The nuances you refer to are sublties associated with people who would rather run with extra risks and try to construct their own logic for doing so. I think we can safely say it is fact that wearing a helmet will help of course it won’t save you in all instances , but the skull is a pretty fragile thing. I have never heard of wearing a helmet being more dangerous than not when ones head connects with the road . Subtlies worth debating include whether cycling helmets are designed to offer as much protection as they could, whilst balancing other factors.
Migstu. A mountain bike
Migstu. A mountain bike helmet or downhill helmet has a totally different design to the helmets that roadies/commuters are persuaded to wear. The road helmet is the equivalent to a ‘pudding bowl’ that motorcycle groups prefer their members not to wear. If folk want to protect their head they need to start to wear either a full face helmet or a 3/4 helmet. I would also suggest a knock brace as well to protect from rotational injuries. If we are to see an increase in modal share we need better infrastructure and heavier penalties on those who harm both cyclists and pedestrians. The calls for helmet legislation are quite simply a red herring to improve road safety. The fact that helmets are worn suggest that cycling is a dangerous pastime or means of commuting. This is not the case. cycling is SAFE unless it happens to be one of the extreme versions. To often analogies are trundled out in regards to how a helmet protected them yet how do we know the outcome would have been any worse/better ‘sans’ helmet?
Watch the pros when the fall. They tuck and roll, they unclip and use their feet as stabilisers. It’s very rare that they have head trauma. Us minions aren’t at that level of expertise but we can still learn how not to fall and if not successful at that then learn how to fall. As for the motorist, the battle goes on to ensure they drive with courtesy, consideration and care toward other road users.
Giff77,- I have not studied
Giff77,- I have not studied he technicalities to know how much difference there actually is .between mtb and road helmet. Obviously some types have greater differences. Points on legislating for better road safety are all fine and I agree more needs to be done , but that is a parallel debate. Wearing a helmet is sensible regardless . The pros falling you refer to wear helmets, so yes, perhaps that is exactly part of the reason they rarely have head trauma, never mind the perception of ninja like skills !?!
As for cycling being SAFE….well, it has obvious risks that cannot be denied, helmet wearing reduces the risk of being killed …. Simple
giff77 wrote:Migstu. A
A lot of mtb and road helmets are virtually identical, IIRC some of the Specilaized ones in particular, difference is often just the peak. In terms of basic construction they’re effectively identical and are evaluated against the same standard. Jump-style pisspots generally have a harder shell that won’t fall apart on impact, tbh I couldn’t say re DH helmets.
JonD wrote:giff77
Downhill helmets are much tougher beasts with a lot of them designed with special impact absorption features. Often tho downhillers take to using motocross helmets, as cycle helmet (design standards) simply don’t provide any protection from hitting something solid at 20+mph. Note that a lot use spine protection and many use neck braces also, as hitting something solid with your head at speed tends to transfer a lot of energy through your spine.
JonD wrote:giff77
Cheers JonD. Was always under the impression mountain bike helmets had a different design for some reason. There you go then.
I actually once had an
I actually once had an accident that I am convinced I would not have walked away from had I not been wearing a helmet. Obviously it’s not possible to prove that, but given that I put a deep crease across the top of it as I headbutted the edge of a stone step I wouldn’t want to volunteer to test the ‘no helmet’ hypothesis.
Having said that I don’t always wear a helmet, and would still advise that gloves are the most important piece of safety equipment given that in an accident your hands will almost certainly make contact with the ground and as a wise man once told me ‘broken bones will heal with dignity, but if both your hands are in plaster then someone else is going to be wiping your arse.’
I have replaced 4 busted
I have replaced 4 busted helmets up to date but I’ve never had to replace my head ! Which ever camp you are in you could say that the situation is a ” no brainer” !
I wonder what happened to the
I wonder what happened to the pictures of the mad reckless unhelmeted dutch folk that I put up?
I cant wait for it be made
I cant wait for it be made law and hear the howls of derision followed by the sheer horror of getting a fixed penalty which costs you more than a helmet would lol, after all the Police have nothing better to do, do they ?
At the moment though wear one if you want to, don’t if you don’t want to its as simple as that but don’t try and force your opinions on others who disagree, whether that’s for or against.
stumps wrote:I cant wait for
They obviously haven’t lol.
Nothing new, there have been plenty of stupid laws lol (and people blindly enforcing them with glee lol).
The most pathetic thing about this subject is how the helmet evangelists generally do the best job of shouting ever louder with their fingers firmly in their ears. They refuse to consider another PoV (or even proper evidence).
For many of those 30 million sharers a post like this reinforces their belief in the fallacy that 1″ of expanded polystyrene will save your life when you are hit by a truck; furthermore that if you ride a bike without wearing one it gives them license to tell you that you are deserving only of insults.
“You’ve got no control of
“You’ve got no control of what will happen when you are on the roads. As a cyclist I make a balanced decision and go by the theory that you need to expect the unexpected. You don’t know what people are going to do.”
This is exactly the case. You can be as careful as you like, look around you as much as you like but you cannot stop people from driving into you.
Only yesterday I had a great ride in the country until I got back into the city. When approaching stationary traffic in the lane to my right the last stationary car in the lane suddenly decided to change into the left lane without indicating. They pulled out, straight into me as I was almost along side them. I had no time to stop so I swerved left and they continued through the narrow gap. If I had been a bit closer when they made their lane change then I would have been off. Similar situation to Ben.
The solution is simple:
If
The solution is simple:
If everyone wears a helmet, (regardless of your persuasion), then it won’t be an excuse anymore for non-action/blaming cyclists.
Then, without excuses they’ll have to improve the infrastructure for cyclists. After that’s done, wear if you want, don’t wear if you don’t want.
ronin wrote:The solution is
No, just like in Australia, the number of cyclists will be so much lower that the modal share doesn’t justify the spend.
Oh, and incidents won’t go down, nor will # of lethal injuries as the frequency per cyclist will become greater…
Only Netherlands & Denmark has really dealt with this stuff on a national level (Malmo in Sweden does very well too) and it’s certainly not by mandating (or recommending) helmets… they’re simply not important for safety or health benefits.
jacknorell wrote:ronin
No, just like in Australia, the number of cyclists will be so much lower that the modal share doesn’t justify the spend.
Oh, and incidents won’t go down, nor will # of lethal injuries as the frequency per cyclist will become greater…
Only Netherlands & Denmark has really dealt with this stuff on a national level (Malmo in Sweden does very well too) and it’s certainly not by mandating (or recommending) helmets… they’re simply not important for safety or health benefits.— ronin
When I went to Malmo I witnessed people leaving their bikes outside shops and work places without even locking them. They would come back to their bike some time later, get on and just ride away.
Oh dear, here we go again.
On
Oh dear, here we go again.
On one side we have the helmet zealots, telling us that a picture of a shattered helmet proves that they work, and on the other, the helmet deniers, holding up their rather less convincing evidence that at a population level, helmets don’t work.
Hmmm, so which to believe, the people with only anecdotal evidence, which isn’t evidence at all, but incredibly emotionally appealing, or the people with hard scientific, proven evidence?
The persistence of the myth of helmet effectiveness has to be worthy of doctoral thesis surely?
burtthebike wrote:Oh dear,
All a big red herring, if you want to wear a helmet, fine but don’t go insisting everyone should wear one all the time because that does more harm than good – it puts people off of cycling. Mandatory helmet law is the enemy of cyclists and fitness.
kie7077 wrote: – it puts
There you have it in 1.5 sentences the sum total of why so many numpties come on here spouting their flat earth nonsense that helmets make no difference to deceitfully mask their true objective. ‘Stuff the people eh, as long as my agenda gets serviced, that’s all that matters’.
I am a cyclist. I am fit. I wear a helmet. It is not my enemy. One day it may be my indispensable friend.
RTB wrote:
There you have it
I hope you also wear your helmet when walking, using stairs or travelling in a motor vehicle. By your own logic you should. Your helmet in those situations is not your enemy. One day it may be your indispensable friend.
Why don’t helmet-evangelising numpties like you understand that cycling is no more dangerous than many other daily activities that we all do without wearing helmets?
Six times more people die from falls on stairs than from cycling each year in the UK. So why aren’t you evangelising the use of your “indispensable friend” on stairs?
Joeinpoole wrote:
Six times
Do you not think those falling down stairs and those wiped out on cycles may be from slightly different cohorts?
atgni wrote:Joeinpoole
They shouldn’t be, people are people, I ride a bike I have tripped on a carpet and fallen down stairs before, shit happens. shall we move on to accidents involving showers and baths, or are you about to argue they are different cohorts as well?
And if we move on, those who die on cycling, who are they? racing accidents and there have been a few, mtbers again a few. Riding to work and hit by HGV? rather to many and it is here that helmets really are pointless.
No one? says do not wear a helmet, what people say is, if you actually bother to read the evidence, helmets are helpful in a few accidents, they might stop you getting some cuts and bruises but that is about it. If the point of helmets was safety why have the standards been reduced? Why are they so less protective than those worn by moped riders? If most fatal accidents involve a motorised vehicle why is little being done to separate bikes and cars?
Maybe the whole helmet debate, is a nice way of getting cyclists to argue amongst themselves, to waste their time and their energy. It simply allows politicians a way out, it gives courts, drivers, CPS, police, etc etc a nice easy excuse. s/he wasn’t wearing a helmet it’s their fault. They never have to look at why the accident happened, car jumping a light, speeding, driver applying makeup, etc etc etc.
One other point, how many accidents are there, I suspect you will not be able to answer that question with any certainty as no one collects near miss figures.
mrmo wrote:atgni
They shouldn’t be, people are people, I ride a bike I have tripped on a carpet and fallen down stairs before, shit happens. shall we move on to accidents involving showers and baths, or are you about to argue they are different cohorts as well?
One other point, how many accidents are there, I suspect you will not be able to answer that question with any certainty as no one collects near miss figures.— Joeinpoole
I suspect they are different cohorts. The ONS tables show deaths from head injuries increasing with age. I would suspect (I’m not looking the figures up) that the cycling figures tail off at earlier ages that the head injury deaths.
If you want to know a statistic for accidents look it up.
atgni wrote:
If you want to
I suspect that falls do increase, my SO works with the elderly and they are continually falling and outcomes worse. What might bruise a 20year old results In a broken hip for a 70 year old for instance.
So the elderly person is hospitalised the youngster off down the pub to tell the story of their stupidity.
So it is always going to be hard to correlate IMO.
In reverse, younger people ride bikes, it should be people of all ages but sadly in the UK it simply isn’t happening! So young people are the ones getting injured.
For me the simply use of statistics is always going to be an issue, how many accidents, how many minor, how many serious and how many deaths. We know the deaths, we have a fair idea of serious but the minor????
Joeinpoole wrote:
Why don’t
Ah Mr. Angry from the pub, I remember you from before. That’s the point isn’t it cycling IS more dangerous than many other daily activities. Absurd and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Pure physics (applied for that matter too) and increased variables provides the obvious science behind that even if instinct fails or is ignored.
RTB wrote:That’s the point
No it isn’t.
No it isn’t.
No it isn’t.
farrell wrote:RTB
Afraid it is, basic science says so. The more people accept this instead of denying it, particularly those from the cycling community, the more likely better safety and awareness will become. Even Chris Boardman’s campaigning implicitly acknowledges that cycling is dangerous. Why would you need to improve the safety of something that isn’t?
Wear a helmet, don’t wear a helmet, your choice. My objection are those ‘Flat-earth’ apostles like you farrell that would irresponsibly and disingenuously attempt to mislead less informed folk. Thank goodness there is a healthy and growing band of active, experienced cyclists that advocate an opposite position.
RTB wrote:Joeinpoole
Ah Mr. Angry from the pub, I remember you from before. That’s the point isn’t it cycling IS more dangerous than many other daily activities. Absurd and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Pure physics (applied for that matter too) and increased variables provides the obvious science behind that even if instinct fails or is ignored.— Joeinpoole
Much as I’d love to see your scientific theory behind why it’s so dangerous, the statistics based on actual real life suggest it really isn’t as dangerous as you think.
If only he’d worn a helmet:
If only he’d worn a helmet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32586657
My brakes have saved my life
My brakes have saved my life 10,000 times.
Be sure to maintain your brakes and check for rim and pad wear at regular intervals.
Funny but I bet this doesn’t go viral! 😀
Your,e ever so smart.
Your,e ever so smart.
Well this is fun
So, where is
Well this is fun
So, where is the evidence that helmets are so very ineffective please?
If a child can die after a walking pace knock to the head on a kerb…and an adult can too…we’ve all heard the freak accident stories then we can conclude that our skulls are pretty darn fragile.
So what next ……decide that unless a helmet can save you from any impact with a truck then best not bother …..pretty daft logic..But if that’s your choice then good luck,and you may well need it !
Migstu wrote:Well this is
Your post shows the very attitude I was referring to.
There’s plenty of evidence but you don’t want to believe it so there’s no point putting it under your nose.
And no, that’s not a cop-out. I simply have very limited time to waste on people who don’t want to listen.
Migstu wrote:
So, where is
‘ Conclusions: There is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce the overall cyclist injury burden at the population level in the UK when data on road casualties is examined.’
Hewson P J, Cycle Helmets and Road Casualties in the UK, Traffic Injury Prevention, 2005;6(2):127-134
“The benefits of helmets seem too modest to capture” Prof. Sir David Spiegelhalter, University of Cambridge, Bicycle helmets and the law British Medical Journal 2013; 346
As examples of the many studies out there.
Tony wrote:Migstu wrote:
So,
I always love the NZ and Australia studies as examples of how some people use good data to generate poor science, e.g. as if to imply that there is emphatically little to no physical benefit in wearing a helmet if you have an off on the road (not un-commonly inferred to be of almost any type) – that the demographic is an ignorable variable in the experiment… it’s frustrating… it’s the same state of mind that says a surviours helmet smashed into tiny pieces is proof it saved their lives.
There is a lot of good science around, and much more to be done, on the physical and psychological issues surrounding helmet wearing and enforcement – I just find it depressing that it always seems to come down to using sound-bite slanging matches.
fukawitribe wrote:
I always
So do I. It means we’ve got 20-odd years of data that pretty much proves that the wearing of helmets does *not* reduce injuries or deaths … but that mandatory laws requiring helmets *does* massively reduce cycling amongst the population.
I’m 55. I always cycled to school and left at 17, a good few years before cycling helmets were even invented. On school holidays, aged 15-16, me and my mates would youth-hotel our way around the country, covering up to 100 miles per day whilst wearing the fashionable massively-flared jeans of the day (with cycle clips obviously). Unless you were a professional there wasn’t even cycling-specific clothing available to the general rider and nor was there perceived to be a need for it. You just wore normal clothes when you cycled. It wasn’t a problem. You didn’t need poncy, padded shorts back then either.
I didn’t see the need for cycling helmets then and I still don’t. In all my time cycling, my family (my Dad cycled to work every day until he was 55), my mates, etc, I’ve never personally known any incident in which a cyclist had a head injury at all … let alone one that might have been prevented by a polystyrene hat. I just don’t perceive cycling to be a high-risk activity that requires PPE.
On the other hand I have known quite a few folk that have sustained head injuries through drinking … myself included. If we *were* to mandate helmet-wearing for any particular activity then undoubtedly it should be for drinking alcohol first. Who’s up for sitting around a pub wearing “alcohol helmets”? Statistically they would be far more necessary and effective than cycling helmets.
I do however get the impression that the lycra-clad, helmet-wearing, “I fucking-well have the right of way” cyclist of today is much less risk-averse than I would be.
Judging by the thousands of “helmet-cam horrors” that they like to publish I almost invariably find myself thinking “why didn’t you slow down when the situation you eventually found yourself in, clearly had the potential to develop dangerously, well before it actually occurred? I would have done so”.
So I ride without a helmet but use my experience to avoid danger that can be anticipated. If you think that wearing a helmet and then ploughing on, at speed, into danger will somehow help you … well, good luck with that!
I wear a helmet not because
I wear a helmet not because it will save my life in the event of a fall of some kind, but because it may save my life. And because it looks cool.
Low Speed Wobble wrote:I DO
Since helmets may also cause deaths, my adapted quote of your post is just as true.
Aapje wrote:I DO NOT wear a
Since helmets may also cause deaths, my adapted quote of your post is just as true.[/quote]
Possible but minute compared to the lives they will save (cf motor bikes).
Last summer I saw a cyclist bounce off the windscreen of a Jag XF (cyclist’s fault he ran a light). Frightening, really frightening and very sobering. The smashed in windscreen was an exact match to his helmet. He survived thankfully (and the Jag driver was refreshingly marvellous btw).
When he had been loaded into the ambulance the paramedic made two observations:
1. The helmet saved the cyclist from more serious head trauma (than had he not been wearing one) and that if he could make the law he would mandate helmets based on what he had seen in his job. (Personally I do not support legislation).
2. The vital role of helmets in holding any trauma in place enabling faster and more accurate diagnosis and course of action. Interestingly he said that the first thing they do with limb or torso injuries, where applicable, is to splint them. He said the helmet frequently does that job at source and they can focus attention on augmenting with a neck brace. He said they rarely, if ever, remove helmets before reaching the hospital because of the benefits they bring in that ‘golden hour’.
RTB wrote:
Possible but
If I’m ever in a similar situation, I hope I get a better paramedic than him.
Or rather, a paramedic that concentrates on doing his job and getting me to the hospital, not playing to the gallery and speculating on the usefulness of helmets.
I must say, this flat earther finds it ridiculously handy that you managed to witness such an accident and also managed to bump in to a paramedic who was willing to delay the transfer of a seriously ill patient to hospital in order provide you with anecdotes and opinions that inexplicably match and mirror your own misguided beliefs oh-so-perfectly.
What are the chances?
farrell wrote:
If I’m ever in
That’s verging on pathetic farrell & I hope you never have to experience or witness such a thing. You know the worst part of it that I remember above all were the noises: the screeching, the sickening thud, the splintering carbon of his Zipp wheel/forks, his muffled scream, the loud wail of his riding companion and then silent shock. It was horrible and a blessed relief that he survived it.
The paramedics (plural) were great, professional, did a marvellous job and spoke in parallel whilst we helped slip the stretcher under him whilst they stabilised him and his colleagues loaded him into the ambulance. Very condescending and flippant of you to suggest otherwise and you weren’t even there so your judgment doesn’t count for much.
@RTB, You should read this
@RTB, You should read this evidence based report:
Cycle Helmets – CTC
I don’t think there’s any point in anyone arguing with you any further as you don’t seem to understand peoples arguments on the matter of compulsory helmets. You keep reducing the argument down to wearing a helmet can protect the head. That is not the point.
RTB wrote: I hope you never
In the interests of openness , I have actually experienced a similar thing, I was hit by two cars in one go. Across the bonnet and windscreen and then whalloped by a car going in the other direction.
I had heavy concussion that left me bandy for a good two or three days as well as other assorted injuries.
The real worst part though was this:
I was doing a rather cheeky sideline of liberating “jazz mags” from work and flogging them on at school, so whilst I’m lay out in the middle of what is a pretty busy road with a crowd of people round me the paramedic decided to have a quick check inside my jacket and empty out the contents.
I was mortified.
He kept the magazine though, the rum sod.
farrell wrote:RTB wrote: I
& a few spokes short in a buckled wheel. That’s a bit sick really, funny it ain’t.
RTB wrote:& a few spokes
I have no idea what you mean.
I suspect you don’t either.
Whilst you’re figuring it out, perhaps you could point me in the direction of where I was being ‘flat earthist’?
farrell wrote:
I have no idea
Seriously farrell I’m out of time for all this ‘dumbing-down’. Just had to explain to Aapje (good grief) why Einstein’s special theory, which he/she tried to quote and even got that wrong, does not apply as well as explaining the difference between mass and weight (give me strength).
You have a keyboard, I suggest you do your own research to find what you seek.
Don’t fall off the edge now…
RTB wrote:Seriously farrell
ctrl+F farrell
I’ve just gone through this thread not found a single post of mine on this thread that could be classed as being ‘flat earthist’. So, far from asking you to ‘dumb down, I’m pointing out that you have either dreamt up something that you wanted to read or you have confused my posts with someone else’s.
Or you’ve heard someone using the flat earth term and have decided to use it without fully understanding what it means.
RTB wrote:Possible but minute
Your reference to motor bikes shows that you are unfamiliar with the huge gap between motor bike helmets and bicycle helmets. They are night and day in safety levels (not surprising if you just look at the area they cover & their weight).
Fact is that bicycle helmets are only designed to help if you land on top of your head, at about the same speed as when you topple over from stationary position. If you fall differently they may ‘grab’ the road, causing rotational injuries to your brain and/or neck. A gentleman above described how this happened to him. If you fall harder, the helmet quickly becomes useless as crash energy goes up with speed squared (e = mc^2). If you fall a bit softer, you would have survived anyway (the skull is actually pretty good at preventing milder injury). So a helmet can only work at certain speeds, if you hit your head in a specific way.
So rational thinking says that helmets will reduce the impact of some incidents and make others worse. In many accidents it will do nothing (even though the helmet may be damaged). That is why anecdotes like yours are so useless. They do not provide real information on how often helmets help, how often they harm and how often they provide no big benefit. Especially when we know that people are very poor at drawing conclusions (doctors performed blood letting for ages, since they saw patients get ‘better’ aka their fever went down; despite their survival chances going down too.)
Ultimately, after decades of research, there has been no conclusive evidence that bicycle helmet have any measurable impact on survival rates. Unlike motorcycle helmets and seat belts where the evidence was overwhelming. In itself, this is really strong evidence that the usefulness of helmets is very limited, so the victim-blaming crowd should stop with proclaiming huge benefits for which they cannot provide solid evidence.
PS. Was that paramedic talking specifically about bicycle helmets or did he conflate all kinds of helmets, as you seem to imply?
Aapje wrote:
Your reference
WTF?!
You are aware that “c” in Einstein’s equation (Special theory of relativity) is the speed of light (3 x 10^8 m/s) and that ‘E’ is the total energy contained in a given mass (m) [not weight which is gravity acting on mass] from its quarks, leptons, bosuns and Higgs-Bosun up.
We’re not talking about atomic and quantum level energy release here FGS.
I think Newton’s laws with a heavy layer of finite element analysis overlaid should get you into the right area if you want to have another stab.
RTB wrote:I think Newton’s
You’re right, I got confused. It’s actually E = 1/2 * mv^2
Which doesn’t change my argument one bit, btw. Energy still increases with speed squared, which is the point I made and which you ignored. Just like you ignored all my other arguments.
Just so you could pedantically point out a single error that didn’t weaken my argument even a little…
Aapje wrote:RTB wrote:I think
More than confused I’d say. There’s a quantum level of difference.
Sorry to say wrong again. “v” is velocity not speed. It is a vector property and that is important. Mass is not weight and velocity is not speed. Further, you cannot simply apply Newton as you have done which is why I flagged FEA to make an accurate calculation. “m”, the entire mass of the object, is not acting at the impact point and “v” (because it is a vector) has directional considerations.
All helmet manufacturers of repute use MCAD systems with FEA to design their products and impact simulations and results form the core part of the product design. The big challenge they have to reconcile is how to make a helmet that is light/aero/comfortable balanced against requirement #1 protection and safety performance. Collectively they spend multi $$M in R&D and the current helmet technology is impressive in both how it looks and what it does.
The one thing it is not, as too many on here try to pretend/believe, is the “emporor’s new clothes”.
RTB wrote:
All helmet
RTB, you are starting to show some real stupidity I really suggest you go away and read the helmet standards then come back and tell us all about how effective they are.
mrmo wrote:
RTB, you are
RTB is rapidly disappearing into the ever-deepening hole he keeps digging for himself. He started with smugness, telling us all how fit and sensible he is … then he sidestepped all statistics and evidence … then he became an expert on physics … and now apparently he’s an authority on helmet design and manufacture.
Where will this journey take us next?
Joeinpoole wrote:mrmo
RTB is rapidly disappearing into the ever-deepening hole he keeps digging for himself. He started with smugness, telling us all how fit and sensible he is … then he sidestepped all statistics and evidence … then he became an expert on physics … and now apparently he’s an authority on helmet design and manufacture.
Where will this journey take us next?— mrmo
Well given I have a joint degree in engineering & applied physics, am a qualified engineer and have worked in the design automation (CAE/CAD/CAM) industry for more than 20 years that does give me a modicum of subject matter and professional knowledge. Hence why it is comical (or sad) when you see people on here (mis)quoting Einstein in a RTA (Einstein works pretty well in a Supernova or the LHC but not so well on a High Street near you).
But there you go if that equates to stupid according to Mrmo then I’ll happily take my stupid over what you guys have given so far. As for smugness you guys have that all wrapped up with the breathtaking complacency and ‘flat earth’ ignorance you show towards a serious subject.
RTB wrote:
Well given I have
RTB, i have a degree in Physics and a Masters, what does this tell me about designing helmets sweet FA, I know the standards to which helmets are designed, i am aware of the differences between US, Europe, and Australia. Did you know that the moulds used for the “same” helmet differ depending on the market.
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/australian-helmet-standards-what-you-need-to-know/
If helmets were about safety why aren’t the standards updated and pushed? Would you buy an NCAP 1* car?
Aapje wrote:Fact is that
Utter bollocks… even if the ‘fact’ were true (which it’s not).
Agree with the former, unfortunately there is an almost complete lack of data on the balance between the two scenarios let alone any detailed testing, which should be worrying for both proponents and opponents alike. Change ‘many’ to ‘some’ and i’d go along with the the gist of the latter too..
‘Afraid it is, basic science
‘Afraid it is, basic science says so. ‘
Can you point me towards this science please? As a scientist, this sounds like utter shit, but it’s important to have an open mind and review the evidence.
andyp wrote:’Afraid it is,
Basic science Andy…velocity, mass, variables, vectors, proportionality, laws of physics, applied laws of physics. As a scientist you should be capable of postulating it from source, it’s kind of obvious (if you know science of course).
I wear a helmet on 95% of my
I wear a helmet on 95% of my rides but I’m not sure why. I think mostly due to peer pressure but also because it somehow feels like an inch of polystyrene could actually make a difference if it managed to come between my head and a kerb. I’ve been off 2 times in the last 5 years, both were my fault, no vehicles were involved and the embarrassment hurt more than the grazes.
I remember clearly during one fall wondering why I could not lift my head away from the tarmac as my helmet was scraping along it. Although I fell sideways and my shoulder and hip took most of the impact, my head was slowly twisted around until I was face-down while lying on my side; not an easy position to get into. It’s clear in my mind that had my helmet not been there my head would not have made contact with the road at all as I could have easily held it clear. But having the extra inch around my head and in contact with the road meant I could not fight the friction and keep my head and neck from twisting. It was not serious but I cannot help but wonder what other damage a helmet might do in an odd situation even though in a straightforward situation it “should” be beneficial?
My embarrassment has no bearing on whether helmets are good, bad or indifferent. Anecdotal evidence like this is no evidence at all. Helmets seem like a “good thing” but then so did many things like smoking, blood letting and thalidomide. Only science cuts through these issues and it seems to me that the only way to make any progress here is to put together a well designed, large scale study that will take time, money and lives. The ethics involved in requiring people to “risk their lives” by not wearing helmets are a nightmare. While I’m sure many cyclists would be happy not to wear a helmet in the name of science that does not make for a scientific study, as all you’ve done is separate people into those who will only cycle with a helmet and those who don’t. Which is why the AU/NZ studies are often cited; a natural experiment. Unfortunately it seems this was a non-repeatable experiment. Even though they show the injury rate went up when helmets were made compulsory, to validate the data would require the law to be repealed, at least temporarily, to see if it goes back down. So many other factors could be involved like increased vehicular traffic over that period, increased popularity of the sport (presumably more dangerous than leisure and commuting) or that the law simply removed more inexperienced cyclists (without their own helmets) from the roads than experienced cyclists (who would presumably cover many, many more miles). I don’t see any way to solve this without experimenting on a whole country at-large and repeatedly changing the law to see what happens, which seems cruel and unusual!
Has anyone got any more reasonable ideas?! For now I’m going to carry on wearing a helmet as it seems to bother drivers and other cyclists and I think it might help in some situation, but I would not try to claim that they’re effective in any measurable way or support a mandatory law to that unproven affect.
Saw this post on Facebook and
Saw this post on Facebook and almost replied to the guy to say that helmets, although a reasonable piece of equipment to marginally reduce the serious injury and death rate from cycling accidents (involving a car or not) are the lowest form of protection and should only be required as a last resort.
I work in the construction industry and as any competent contractor or consultant will tell you PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is the LEAST effective way of preventing or reducing the likely-hood of harm to someone on a construction site where falls from height, slips trips and falls, and contact with moving machinery or heavy goods are the most common causes of injury and death. Many of these accidents have similar comparable scenarios for cyclists, ie collisions with cars, falling due to poor road surfaces etc.
Elimination and where this is not possible segregation from the causes of these hazards has been proven to be by far the most effective way of dramatically reducing deaths and or serious injuries in construction over the last 20-30 years.
To truly tackle the risk to cyclists on the road the hazard must be eliminated at source, in the case of collisions between cyclists and cars this would be to either stop cycling completely or ban cars, both clearly not feasible or beneficial to anybody.
The first truly practical solution would be to segregate the two parties so that they never meet, which leads to the provision of good quality cycling infrastructure.
The danger with the recurring helmet debate is that the emphasis on helmets as an effective or ineffective way of preventing serious injury or death from a collision with a car or from falling from your bike distracts from the far more effective solution to improving cyclists safety, which is the provision of proper cycling infrastructure, improved road surfacing and maintenance.
You want to know why people in Amsterdam don’t wear helmets? they don’t need to, they have proper cycling infrastructure. One day workers on construction sites will no longer need to wear PPE but this will only be as a result of massive investment in the safety initiatives and practices brought about by the Health and Safety at Work Act, of which it is a criminal offence to breach.
If only there was a Health and Safety whilst going to Work Act…………
greenlight wrote:
You want to
All you write is consistent with what Chris Boardman advocates which in essence is that too much of the debate in improving cycling safety (because there are dangers) is focused disproportionately on helmets to the detriment of other measures, some of which you list.
I would agree with that (Boardman and you). Logical and well reasoned. However, a number of ‘flat-earthers’ have hijacked that to justify an anti-helmet position which is a misrepresentation of both Boardman and his arguments.
The sentence I captured from your quote says it all. At no point does your piece make a case for not wearing helmets, it’s a parallel argument. In fact that sentence cries out the case for the opposite.
‘Basic science
‘Basic science Andy…velocity, mass, variables, vectors, proportionality, laws of physics, applied laws of physics. As a scientist you should be capable of postulating it from source, it’s kind of obvious (if you know science of course).’
Basic science says that all the above also apply to sitting in a chair, having a shower, going to the shops. To then apply these to define some kind of arbitrary ‘X is more dangerous than Y’ is of course very poor science. HTH.
andyp wrote:’Basic science
I didn’t. It was others (the flat earth anti-helmet crew like joeinpoole) who actually introduced that comparison.
QED. Thanks for reinforcing and making my point (inadvertent though it was).
andyp wrote:’Basic science
There is of course the missing random variable with sitting in a chair, having a shower or going to the shops (assumed walking) when compared to cycling. i.e. potential interaction with motor vehicles.
Helmet use may prove to be the ‘marginal gain’ that stops a head trauma killing you. The choice is ours to make, so don’t wear one if you don’t want to.
It just strikes me as far too
It just strikes me as far too fanciful and unbelievable.
Perhaps the accident did happen, perhaps the paramedic did make a comment, I just find it very hard to believe that he made such a detailed observation to a complete stranger with no real involvement in the situation.
farrell wrote:
Perhaps the
Get over yourself will you? Given the ‘flat earth’, conspiracy theory stuff we’ve had from you so far I don’t think we should place much credence on what you believe. [FWIW it happened as described (Thu 10/7/14) with a 22 minute delay, all recorded & logged on Strava.]
And you suggest I am the one who is misguided. Only in farrell’s (flat) world…
Also, your references to
Also, your references to products strikes me as odd.
Jaguar XF, Zipp Wheels. Nobody really needs to know that.
It’s like dealing with a marketing Bot.
farrell wrote:Also, your
Funny you just strike me as odd.
RTB wrote:farrell wrote:Also,
Funny you just strike me as odd.— farrell
It has taken a while for you to descend to insults but, looking at your other posts, it was only a matter of time.
Stick to facts. Insults merely make you look ignorant or a troll.
I was first aider to someone
I was first aider to someone who was struck by a car. The windscreen showed the classic bullseye markings of a head impact. The rider was unconscious with a depressed skull fracture amongst other serious injuries. I can’t say categorically that wearing a helmet would have made a difference but the fracture was where a helmet would have covered. I will never forget the feeling of helplessness and subsequent guilt when I later found out that the rider died on the way to hospital. Maybe I could have done something different, maybe the outcome might of been different if any of a dozen contributing factors had been different.
Personally I don’t want to be criminalised for not wearing a helmet. Mostly I do and I appreciate that others make a choice not to. Speaking only from my personal experiences I am pretty sure I walked away unscathed from an accident that would otherwise have caused a serious head trauma had I not been wearing a helmet (previous post in thread) and I have witnessed a fatality where a helmet really might have saved a life.
I am also aware that quite often a serious incident will elicit an ambulance and other paramedic responders, after the casualty has been dealt with any ‘spare’ responder may very well have taken the time to talk to witnesses and first aiders if only to make sure they are OK having been involved in a very traumatic incident. This is what happened in my case.
A helmet is supposed to get
A helmet is supposed to get some damage, even total, in a crash, just like the crumple zones in cars, so that you that you get less damage, therefore the dismissive attitude from some commenters is obvious cognitive bias or complacency.
I agree that wearing a cycle helmet should be a personal choice because not wearing one will probably not hurt anyone else, unless you have dependents…
I value my whole body, including head, so have decent brakes and pads, decent tires, tough gloves and wear an exceeding standards helmet most of the time, in part, because accidents taught me in several hard, painful and quite costly ways to.
If you have higher insurance premiums, get damaged or more damaged from not wearing a (suitable) helmet or other extra costs, then I will have no sympathy for you; maybe some pity.
urbane wrote:A helmet is
But structurally the helmet should not rupture, if it has failed in a manner that exceeds its design, it will have absorbed some energy, but the failure mode and transmission of energy is no longer controlled.
The crumple zone in a car is designed to absorb energy in a controlled way.
It is not about bias or complacency, but rather the opposite, it is an understanding that helmets really aren’t that effective in a serious accident. trip over, bang your head against a branch, fine, get hit by a car doing 50 not so.
Simple question about priorities.
Would you rather be hit by a car wearing a helmet or not get hit by a car, whilst not wearing a helmet?
mrmo wrote:urbane wrote:A
Up to a point that the crumple zone’s design criteria is exceeded and the transmission of energy is no longer controlled.
You’re saying the same thing but claiming it proves a different point.
I find it interesting that
I find it interesting that anyone believes cycle helmet manufacturers care about anything but the following three criteria:
– Passing the standard test
– Perceived performance (breathability|weight|adjustability; in each case more or less as desirable)
– Looks (so it sells…)
To highlight that, motorcycle helmets have got larger and heavier (or fancier materials) over time, and are sold with strong safety endorsements, backed by things like materials testing.
Bike helmets are sold on light weight and racers wearing them…
I’ve drawn my conclusions from that. YMMV.
His science & understanding
His science & understanding of mass, velocity & vectors are a bit off.
If the persons head had still been in the helmet pictured originally, he would be dead. Only identifiable by DNA sample.
More people sustain head injuries in RTA’s, within the vehicle, than any other injury. Yet nobody is calling for motorists to wear helmets.
If you want to wear a helmet whilst riding, fine. If not, also fine. When you get hit by a car, van, bus or HGV it really won’t help much (unless it is a really freak accident).
Some of the back & forth on this thread goes beyond boring…