Video: Headcam user films cyclist crashing headfirst, urges riders to wear helmets

oozaveared wrote:

That's the same shrift you are getting here and for the same reason.

Hidden graveyard problem. Those saved from death/injury by helmets do not show up in your survey.

The risk profiles of a seatbelt vs 5 point seatbelt are completely different to the risk profiles of helmet vs no helmet.

JohnnyW wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

That's the same shrift you are getting here and for the same reason.

Hidden graveyard problem. Those saved from death/injury by helmets do not show up in your survey.

The risk profiles of a seatbelt vs 5 point seatbelt are completely different to the risk profiles of helmet vs no helmet.

 

 

 

Surely you have that back-to-front?
The hidden graveyard is full of all those who died due to physical-inactivity-related conditions due to the suppressive effect that fixation on helmets and high-viz and so on have on people's willingness to cycle and to the distraction they cause from the real sources of road danger.
(I don't really care much about what poeple do on off-road mountain-biking type activities - its a different argument, that I don't have any opinion on ).

oozaveared wrote:

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I think you may need to educate yourself a bit about helmets.  How they are made, how they work, what they do and what they don't do.  No one is anti-helmet.  They are just irrelvant to road safety and even counterproductive.  

The reason is that they frame the argument in terms of making cycling appear far more dangerous than it is.  It is statistically very safe.  There is lots we can do to improve it further but helmets aren't one of them.  Most cyclists just travelling on the road gain no benefit whatsoever from wearing a helmet.  But wear one if you like.  Wear a St Christopher medal if you like, splash yourself with holy water or keep a rabbits foot in saddlebag.  They'll all have about exactly the same usefulness to the average cyclist going to the shops or riding to work. 

What they do do however is signal that cycling is a dangerous activity in need of special protective equipment.  That image (which bears no relation to the actuality) keeps cyclists off the road.  The key element that keeps cyclists safe on the road is their ubiquity.  That there are lots of us.  That as a driver you know that it is likely that cyclists will be travelling on the road. That as a driver perhaps you also cycle.  

So people don't object to helmets they object to people equating road safety with helmet use and when it arguably has the opposite effect.   You may want to look at cycling in the Netherlands  or in Denmark and contrast it with cycling in Australia which has compulsory helmet laws.    How many people are cycling, how safe are they, how likely is a newbie to take up cycling to work. 

You may be new but this is far more complicated and issue than whether you think some polystyrene will keep the roads safe.  

For example how many cyclists have been killed or seriously injured on the road where a helmet would even have mitigated any injury.  They are rated to 50 joules of impact protection when brand new and properly fitted.  

So just to get this straight.  There are around 100 or so cyclists killed on the road each year. It has come down massively over the years as have all road deaths.  Of those 100 or so, only some are going to involve any head injury.  For example the 8 people killed in London so far this year 7 were crushed by lorries over their legs and lower torso.  There were no head injuries.  Even when there are head injuries you need to discern whether a helmet would have been of any use.  So if you are whacked at high speed your head will be injured no doubt but your back will be broken and you will have your vital organs ripped apart. The head injury would be fatal as would any of the other injuries.  A helmet would make no difference to the outcome.  So you then narrow further to find head injuries that were at low enough speed for the helmet to have any mitigating effect.  In that category the effect of mitigation is found to be 10 - 16%.  So in a sub set of a sub set where helmets might work they are 10% - 16% effective at mitigation.

You mentioned seatbelts.  In a number of road accidents had the driver been wearing race standard 5 point seat belts and a helmet they would have survived a fatal accident.    A life is a life right?  So it's worth saving anyone.  But if you then started saying that all drivers and passengers should have 5 point safety belts anchored to the chassis of their vehicle and wear a helmet because if they all did so you could save 3 lives a year  you would get short shrift.

That's the same shrift you are getting here and for the same reason.

What bollox. I wear a helmet because on the several occasions I have been knocked down it has protected my head. Of course a cycling helmet has limitations but you are far better off with one than without. I don't believe they should be mandatory. If they did become mandatory it would be because of people like you who refuse to wear them.

Airzound wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I think you may need to educate yourself a bit about helmets.  How they are made, how they work, what they do and what they don't do.  No one is anti-helmet.  They are just irrelvant to road safety and even counterproductive.  

The reason is that they frame the argument in terms of making cycling appear far more dangerous than it is.  It is statistically very safe.  There is lots we can do to improve it further but helmets aren't one of them.  Most cyclists just travelling on the road gain no benefit whatsoever from wearing a helmet.  But wear one if you like.  Wear a St Christopher medal if you like, splash yourself with holy water or keep a rabbits foot in saddlebag.  They'll all have about exactly the same usefulness to the average cyclist going to the shops or riding to work. 

What they do do however is signal that cycling is a dangerous activity in need of special protective equipment.  That image (which bears no relation to the actuality) keeps cyclists off the road.  The key element that keeps cyclists safe on the road is their ubiquity.  That there are lots of us.  That as a driver you know that it is likely that cyclists will be travelling on the road. That as a driver perhaps you also cycle.  

So people don't object to helmets they object to people equating road safety with helmet use and when it arguably has the opposite effect.   You may want to look at cycling in the Netherlands  or in Denmark and contrast it with cycling in Australia which has compulsory helmet laws.    How many people are cycling, how safe are they, how likely is a newbie to take up cycling to work. 

You may be new but this is far more complicated and issue than whether you think some polystyrene will keep the roads safe.  

For example how many cyclists have been killed or seriously injured on the road where a helmet would even have mitigated any injury.  They are rated to 50 joules of impact protection when brand new and properly fitted.  

So just to get this straight.  There are around 100 or so cyclists killed on the road each year. It has come down massively over the years as have all road deaths.  Of those 100 or so, only some are going to involve any head injury.  For example the 8 people killed in London so far this year 7 were crushed by lorries over their legs and lower torso.  There were no head injuries.  Even when there are head injuries you need to discern whether a helmet would have been of any use.  So if you are whacked at high speed your head will be injured no doubt but your back will be broken and you will have your vital organs ripped apart. The head injury would be fatal as would any of the other injuries.  A helmet would make no difference to the outcome.  So you then narrow further to find head injuries that were at low enough speed for the helmet to have any mitigating effect.  In that category the effect of mitigation is found to be 10 - 16%.  So in a sub set of a sub set where helmets might work they are 10% - 16% effective at mitigation.

You mentioned seatbelts.  In a number of road accidents had the driver been wearing race standard 5 point seat belts and a helmet they would have survived a fatal accident.    A life is a life right?  So it's worth saving anyone.  But if you then started saying that all drivers and passengers should have 5 point safety belts anchored to the chassis of their vehicle and wear a helmet because if they all did so you could save 3 lives a year  you would get short shrift.

That's the same shrift you are getting here and for the same reason.

 

What bollox. I wear a helmet because on the several occasions I have been knocked down it has protected my head. Of course a cycling helmet has limitations but you are far better off with one than without. I don't believe they should be mandatory. If they did become mandatory it would be because of people like you who refuse to wear them.

Yep that's right all those crazy Dutch and Danish cyclists what are they thinking ?  And did you know that the A&E departments of Dutch hospitals are overwhelmed by cyclists with head injuries. ? No!  Just kidding.    So are ours by the way!  Just kidding again.  

Like a lot of the folk on here you fail to distinguish between cycling as a normal means of transport and cycling as a sport.  

BTW I have 3 helmets and as a I said wear them when when it is appropriate and useful. Sportives and mountainbiking. The first where there's lots of inexperienced cyclists all grouped together or when the MTB terrain can easily have you off and out of control.  ie where the 50 joules of impact protection will stop a nasty cut or graze and where that is more likely to happen.  

But I don't wear one to cycle to work or for that matter when I am out jogging either.  Could get a nasty bump on the head if you tripped on a pavement at 7mph.  As for that Mo Farah tanking along at 13mph what a loon.  He should have a helmet on if he's going that fast - Surely>?  It's faster than most commuters are going on their bikes. 

If wearing your helmet makes you feel better and safer then fill your boots.  No-one objects.  Lots of people have lucky charms. 

MrWigster wrote:

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

What car?
On the whole I'd rather drivers didn't put seatbelts on, then they might drive more carefully.

danthomascyclist wrote:

Irrespective of what camp you sit in with regards to wearing helmets on the roads I think you'd have to be pretty stubborn to suggest they don't help in off-road environments.

When I was young, quite a long time ago I must admit, the main off-road cycling activities were either "Rough stuff" riding off road on bikes that were not adapted for such and Cyclo Cross. For neither of those activities did we consider wearing helmets of any type but would sometimes wear a cotton cap to keep mud, rain or snow out of our eyes. Head injuries were pretty rare and I never came across such an injury in over 10 years of racing and training.

The point of my post is just to point out that off road environments are not in themselves dangerous and as such wearing a helmet is not really a simple matter of common sense. It is, just like it is on the road, a matter of personal choice that tends to be made dependant on personal belief in whether or not they are either (a) necessary and (b) effective.

MrWigster wrote:

Superbly calm handling by the guy with the camera, taking control of the situation, don't move the body, 999, grid reference, and giving the guy a word to remember. All basic items that can completely change the outcome of situations like this.

I think everyone agrees that he did a great job.  And seeing him handle the situation like that is very useful and educational.  (Reminds me that I should go and do the first aid course I keep meaning to do).

 I was interested in one side item as I watched it:  what is the point of not letting him lose consciousness?  Is it that his body will be less able to cope with the trauma, or is it to keep him in a state where he can report where he experiences pain to aid the paramedics in determining how to proceed?

Blast - double post

Ush wrote:

MrWigster wrote:

Superbly calm handling by the guy with the camera, taking control of the situation, don't move the body, 999, grid reference, and giving the guy a word to remember. All basic items that can completely change the outcome of situations like this.

 

I think everyone agrees that he did a great job.  And seeing him handle the situation like that is very useful and educational.  (Reminds me that I should go and do the first aid course I keep meaning to do).

 I was interested in one side item as I watched it:  what is the point of not letting him lose consciousness?  Is it that his body will be less able to cope with the trauma, or is it to keep him in a state where he can report where he experiences pain to aid the paramedics in determining how to proceed?

Ush, this used to be standard practice as it was believed that the injured individual would lapse into a coma. This is usually more of a concern 6/7 hours later if the person starts to feel drowsy. CAT scans have made the necessity of wakening a patient pretty much pointless, unless there is great concern for their well being. In fact neurosurgeons recommend rest and sleep as the best means of recovery for the body and brain. That said, I was well impressed with how calm the first aider was throughout. 

C.Gregs wrote:

Fair enough about them not being mandatory, just advised. However, you're pretty special if you don't wear one mountain biking.

Why?  You can see from the video that they don't work at preventing concussions. 

C.Gregs wrote:

The argument is more poignant on the road where cyclists can be at the mercy of all kinds of external factors which decent infrastructure and training for motorists and the like can negate over the mandatory use of a helmet which might put some people off cycling. 

Poignant?!  Mercy?!  Cue the throbbing cinematic score and cut to the scene of children starving in some "foreign" country (preferably with flies and maybe some sort of black-and-white footage of a WW2 atrocity).

 Meanwhile, if you think that a helmet is going to save you in the relatively rare even that a car slams into you then I have a bridge, a life-insurance policy and some snake-oil which you may be interested in.

Also, I hope you are wearing spine-protector during your death-defying commute, and that your helmet is at least a full-face downhill model? 

Ush wrote:

 Meanwhile, if you think that a helmet is going to save you in the relatively rare even that a car slams into you then I have a bridge, a life-insurance policy and some snake-oil which you may be interested in.

So you believe:

1. The risk of being involved in an accident is low
2. The outcome of being involved in an accident is predictable

2 is wrong. This doesn't need any more discussion.

1 is your personal belief. Most people that cycle in an urban environment would disagree with you.

Your spine-protector quip is also wrong. Risk profile of hedge VS stronger hedge is completely different to no hedge Vs Hedge.

harragan wrote:

Here we go.

Beat me to it, let the deluge start