The local police and ambulance services in Hackney, East London, one of the most successful boroughs in the capital in terms of cycling numbers, have come under fire for a series of bizarre tweets about not wearing a helmet being ‘risky’.
The Joint Response Units tweeted on February 18th that they were attending a “RTC- cyclist in collision with a van. Taken to a Major Trauma Centre as a priority @MPSHackney #NoHelmet #999family”
It was sent after a call out to Northchurch Road, De Beauvoir, where a man in his 70s had head injuries after colliding with a van.
The hashtag #NoHelmet brought about an instant angry reaction on the social media site.
Jono Kenyon of the Hackney Cycling Campaign tweeted back: “Hoping a speedy recovery. Not sure the #nohelmet hashtag is needed though. We don’t do it for car drivers.”
But then Hackney Police weighed in, responding: “it’s best to wear a helmet. Provides far more protection. We see injures from #Nohelmets”
Hackney Cyclist said: “do you recommend pedestrians wear helmets whilst walking round Hackney Central?”
But the police tweeter continued to argue in a string of tweets reading: “I would see it more as prevention than blaming. It’s not necessarily the cyclists fault but you are more vulnerable.
“not wearing a helmet is still very risk [sic] in our opinion. That’s what we were saying.”
Meanwhile the Joint Response Unit was back for more, saying: “A helmet would have prevented further injury to the head from the road. Tweet not about blame.”
Another member of the public said: “disgraceful victim-blaming. Helmets aren’t the law. Pedestrians and drivers don’t get criticism for not wearing.”
Back in 2015 we reported how Chris Boardman told road.cc that cycle helmets are “not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.
“We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks – more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
“You can ride a thousand times round the planet for each cycling death. You are safer than gardening.”
But in 2013 Sir Bradley Wiggins said they should be mandatory for all cyclists.
Speaking to BBC’s Newsround, he said: “I think certain laws for cyclists need to be passed to protect us more than anything.
“Making helmets compulsory on the roads, making it illegal to maybe have an iPod in while you’re riding a bike, just little things like that would make a huge difference.”
However he was seen riding a Boris Bike in London without a lid just this month.
69 thoughts on “War breaks out on Twitter after police and ambulance blame cyclist for #NoHelmet”
Barking up the wrong tree yet
Barking up the wrong tree yet again.
swldxer wrote:
Unlike yourself who choose a study from Germany, where the cycling culture is completely different. Where some roads allow yu to drive at any speed your car is capable of, although you will invalidate your insurance if deemed excessive. And where the police do commonly stop riders on the road and informally discuss ‘no helmet’ choice with them. And where the same policeman can give you an on-the-spot fine for riding on the road if there is a cycle lane in place and they deem it was a safer option, completely at their discretion.
But never mind that, how about just considering the baselines of number of cyclists / walkers / drivers etc.
kevinmorice wrote:
Care to reference a more relevant study then?
I wonder how many car RTCs
I wonder how many car RTCs where the driver or passanger suffer head trauma that they tag nohelmet?
I do very much love the comment from Hackney Cyclist it is very accute.
“Provides far more protection” – than what? And even if you compare it with no helmet at all did the police take into consideration that if he had not been wearing one he might not have been hit, or even a long haired wig? (http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm)
“I would see it more as prevention than blaming” – prevention?! Prevention would have been if he hadn’t been hit at all. If the collision had not taken place, if there had been infrastructure in place to protect him.
I hate these things as you have people weighing in with anecodtes all the time as if it is comparable with actual whole population statistics. If I were to be terribly crude I could point to studies of Dutch cyclist hospitalisation rates where back ground helmet use is in the region of about 0.5%, but the proportion of cyclists hospitalised who do wear helmets is far higher (13.3%). Obviously it points to helmets being more dangerous. *ahem*. Now this misses out on the point that those invovled in injury are doing something no-usual, racing or mountain biking not the utility trips that make up the majority of journeys.
Or crude analogies between helmets and seatbelts, one has a proven efficacy, the other hasn’t. You might as well say that had he been wearing his lucky tailisman then he wouldn’t have been hit.
Until we have concensus in the efficacy of helmets then it should not even be on the discussion board. What would save more lives than helmets would be if people on bikes stopped being run over.
Wolfshade wrote:
You would probably be very surprised at the evidence about seat belts. Their efficacy is proved for vehicle occupants, but because of risk compensation by drivers, more vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists die, resulting in a higher overall death rate.
#nocar
#NoCar
I’m old enough to remember
I’m old enough to remember when police officers wore helmets rather than flat caps. Since then violence both by and against police officers has increased. Bring back police officers in helmets
#nohelmet
Oh that’s awful from
Oh that’s awful from @beztweets and more…
https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/674363056932155392
I’ve got to laugh whenever a
I’ve got to laugh whenever a helmet debate raises its ugly head. I always wear a lid when riding, that’s my choice. Some people choose not to, that’s their choice. I’m not getting into the bear pit, as far as efficacy is concerned. It’s a freedom of choice thing, from my point of view.
Judge dreadful wrote:
As utterly tedious as the debates are, the underlying problem is that compulsory helmet-laws are an ever-present threat. That’s why these sorts of comments can’t just be ignored.
Anyway, what creates the danger is not the absence of helmets but the presence of cars. So why wasn’t the hashtag #toomanymotorisedvehicles or #badroads ?
I have to agree, if a
I have to agree, if a motorist or pedestrain dies from a head Injury would they #hashtag the same?
Das wrote:
We’re in the midst of a cultural war, folks.
Keep calm and carry on (tweeting the berks in charge of police/ambulance twitter accounts to point out the many flaws in their ‘logic’).
The argument about car
The argument about car drivers or pedestrians wearing helmets is nothing short of retarded. Car drivers have seat belts and air bags, pedestrians are incredibly slow. Cyclists without helmets are usually either ignorant or arrogant. It’s blatantly obvious a helmet can save you from more serious head injuries so I completely agree with the emergency services making those comments!
ViperS15 wrote:
Your argument seems beyond moronic to me. Who cares whether drivers have seat belts etc? They still suffer head injuries in large numbers. Clearly the seat belts etc don’t provide enough protection.
And who cares whether pedestrians are slow? Its not the ped or cyclist’s speed that causes the injuries for the most part, its the speed of the car that hits them. Learn some basic physics.
Above all, if its wrong to cycle without a helmet because it (in your view) marginally increases the chance of injury, its equally wrong to travel with a car, because that hugely increases the chances of injuries for everyone [edit – not to mention lung and heart diseases].
Come to think of it – does a paramedic attending a heart attack, tweet #notenoughactivetravel ?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
There doesn’t need to be a third party involved for a cyclist to sustain an injury so your physics argument is irrelevant. They could hit a pothole or slip on ice. A cyclist has further to fall and is going faster than a pedestrian so my point is still entirely true.
Yes the car drivers sustain head injuries, however they would be severely worse without the seat belts. I agree seat belts aren’t enough but that is why curtain airbags are made.
I never said it is wrong to cycle without helmets, just pretty daft because they very clearly make a difference.
ViperS15 wrote:
You’re right they do make a difference, a negative difference.
The New Zealand helmet law came into effect from 1st January 1994. It applies to bicycle riders of all ages, but not to the riders of other types of cycle (unicycles, tricycles, quadricycles, etc). The NZ Government stated that the aim was to protect bicyclists from themselves, not from motor vehicle impacts.
So let’s interpret the graph, well the black area shows the number of cyclists so making people wear helmets massively decreases participation, which is a bad thing. The red line shows the injuries per 100,000 cyclist which infers that there are fewer cyclists suffering far more injuries (unless those fewer cyclists have massively increased their mileage so the total cycled distance stays comparable).
So yeah the introduction of mandatory helmets makes a clear difference, fewer participants and more injury to those fewer cyclists who are left.
It is counter intuitive I grant you.
Wolfshade wrote:
So yeah the introduction of mandatory helmets makes a clear difference, fewer participants and more injury to those fewer cyclists who are left.
It is counter intuitive I grant you.
— Wolfshade
Just a wee point of order – the graph is injuries per number of cyclists, not mileage. Related to this , there are discussions online and elsewhere about the change in demographics after mandatory laws – such as helmets – and how they might change the statistics, and why it’s important to consider that when debating consequences of those changes.
ViperS15 wrote:
OTIO
ViperS15 wrote:
Correct pedestrians are slower than cyclists, and the risk of accident not involving s motor vehicle is higher for cyclists. Helmets do protect cyclists from accidents of their own making. They do not protect cyclists who are hit at speed by two tonne metal boxes. Just as they would not protect pedestrians.
But as many pedestrians suffer head injuries as cyclists so an equal number of injuries could be avoided by mandatory helmets for both groups. In fact more for pedestrians because some cyclist head injuries occur despite the presance of a helmet while all pedestrian head injuries occur in the absence of a helmet.
Cycle helmets designed only for the impact from the head hitting the ground in a sideways fall. Any incident other than this does not warrant any suggestion that a magic helmet would have saved anyone.
ViperS15 wrote:
[[[[[ VipersS15— that would be as in “vindscreen vipers”?—you’re not only missing the point, you’re also missing the stats-list quoted by “Swidxer”, old bean. (See above). Do have a look, and then see how you feel…..I say “feel” advisedly, rather than”think”…..
Drivers with seatbelts still
Drivers with seatbelts still get head injuries – as a passenger I got knocked out against the B-pillar (one between front and rear doors) in an accident. Its why many cars have side curtain and B-pillar airbags.
We won’t conclude the
We won’t conclude the infamous helmet debate on this comments thread but what needs to be railed against is the emergency services taking sides like this.
It is a slippery slope, and not too difficult to imagine a politician standing up demanding compulsory helmets because LAS are in favour of them.
It’s also discrimination by the LAS. Car users have more head injuries than cycle users – do they campaign for car helments? Do they fcuk.
A pity the story doesn’t
A pity the story doesn’t offer a link to the ongoing fun at the joint thingy twit account.
vbvb wrote:
It’s fairly easy to find. And much harder to follow, given the nature of twitter.
“Brave” of LAS to continue to post when being called out. Lots of people in there supporting LAS who are alive today because of polystyrene use etc.
Nothing really all that new.
People struggle with the
People struggle with the concept of risk and a Twitter storm isn’t going to change that.
Occasionally I get asked by colleagues about helmets (my firm’s bike parking is adjacent to the smokers’ preferred sheltered corner) and I learned to respond by simply saying that, excluding sport cycling, a helmet is about as effective as the filter on their cigarette.
I don’t know if the numbers would back me up on that assertion, but it seems to satisfy the smokers.
Bill H wrote:
Ha ha. I don’t know if it bears up, but I like it anyway. First laugh I’ve got out of this topic for a while.
It’s wonderful that these
It’s wonderful that these hard-working people have enough time to pursue independent studies into a complex topic and have been able to settle on a simplistic slogan which challenges the woolly thinking of Cambridge’s Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk: http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12.05.png
I wonder what their thoughts are on SETI and which algorithms they’d like to see implemented on quantum computers?
Suggested tags: #knowall, #doyourjob, #nocars, #shutyerpiehole
This from my local news site
This from my local news site today – http://edp24.co.uk/1.4427083
No mention of #NoHelmet.
Oh wow, something is
Oh wow, something is mentioned on twitter and all hell breaks loose. Who cares what someone puts on twitter and its quite sad that people have so little in their life to find this reproachable.
stumps wrote:
When it’s a joint Ambulance/Police response, using a moronic hashtag, in an urban area with high levels of cyclists, quite a few people will care.
Plod or not, stumps, this tweeter was ill-informed and way out of their depth, which isn’t the best position to be representing ambulance or police services from.
The problem is not #nohelmet
The problem is not #nohelmet it’s lousy driving, it’s people not taking care of everyone else, it’s people forgetting that getting behind the wheel is a fucking serious business!!!
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Roads are dangerous places and law/regulation has limited effect on bad driving, so wishing for all good vehicle driving is naive and stupid. If a cyclist is taking the risk of being on the road and not risk aware enough, skilled enough at avoiding risk or planning an escape route for a risky situation, or just plain unlucky, it is only a matter of time and chance before they get involved in an accident, so better to not be stupid and wear a helmet just-in-case.
I know from personal experience that a helmet between the head and a hard surface can prevent or reduce both abrasion and impact damage for off road crashes, so will reduce injuries for road crashes too, within the protection limits and the head coverage of the helmet. This can include preventing very expensive dental injuries if the helmet includes a chin guard too!
I sometimes don’t wear a helmet, but only for short trips, when I think the risk of head injury is low, so I don’t think it is sensible to make always wearing a helmet a legal requirement.
Maybe the response should be
Maybe the response should be #no bike in response to any reports of medical conditions related to being overweight. Since we all know life expectancy of cyclists (even without helmets) is better than non cyclists.
I think you’ll find most
I think you’ll find most people, especially on here, dont give 2 toots what the Police etc do as, in their opinion, its nearly always wrong.
In the end an elderly male has gone to hospital with a head injury, regardless of the extent of the injury he’ll automatically go to major trauma because of his age. Without the full facts you can’t say that wearing a helmet would not have stopped the injury also that it would have.
Those paramedic crews on the ground and dealt with the male could have been in a position to say it would have hence the quote.
stumps wrote:
Well, maybe a tweet from the police suggesting people avoid driving unless they absolutely have to, and then drive slowly and carefully, would ACTUALLY reduce accidents. But no, blame the victim is easier.
Operation yewtree’s findings
Operation yewtree’s findings in the Savile ‘saga’ ring true in this case #noshellsuits
I’ve been in extended contact
I’ve been in extended contact with the professional body for emergency responders about the thousands of quotes from their members saying that a cycle helmet would have saved a life or serious injury, and eventually, they allowed me to submit an article. In it, I quoted some of the reliable, long term, large scale evidence, all of which showed that cycle helmets had, at best, no effect, and at worst increased risk.
At the same time, they published an article praising cycle helmets, which used as its basis the utterly discredited Thompson, Rivara and Thompson research, and it was quite obvious that the author didn’t have the faintest idea what they were talking about. They would not allow any response from me.
It is depressing that they have not taken the information on board, and they remain wilfully ignorant.
Most helmet head injury
Most helmet head injury discussions miss a major point. There are not many bicycle head injuries and even less brain injuries. Certainly compared to the biggest source of head injury, more specifically brain injury, which is stroke. The number of brain injuries from bikes is vanishingly small.
The elderly bicycle user by virtue of using the bike instead of driving was living a more active life, thus delaying or decreasing the likelihood of stroke and for that matter many other debilitating conditions.
According to research undertaken in Norway (Elvik) and using alot of Australian helmet data, if a rider is discouraged from riding by a helmet requirement, the net health deficit is about 20 to one. That is you save one unit medical cost of a head injury but lose twenty through other forms of ill health.
By all means encourage the elderly to ride bikes and dont think for a minute that you are doing them a favour by suggesting its so dangerous they need helmets.
Pjrob wrote:
Relative to the number of journeys and miles covered by motor vehicles, there are hardly any head injuries and even fewer brain injuries. Certainly compared to the biggest source of head injury, more specifically brain injury, which is stroke. The number of brain injuries from motor vehicle occupancy is vanishingly small.
I still wear a seatbelt and wouldn’t dream of purchasing a car that doesn’t come with multiple driver and passenger air bags, because you only need to be unlucky once ….
http://road.cc/content/news/129941-cyclist-dies-after-riding-chain-strung-between-two-bollards
L.Willo wrote:
You seem to have utterly missed the point of the comment you are replying to. Driving doesn’t reduce the risk of stroke, it actually increases it (both in the driver, via inactivity, and in the wider population via the enforced inactivity and the pollution effects), so your attempt at a parallel argument falls flat on its arse (fortunately not on its head).
I don’t care whether you wear a seatbelt – well, no, I’d rather you didn’t as then you’d probably drive more carefully.
Oh yeah, another reason why your argument fails completly is that there is no evidence that compulsory seat-belt laws deter driving (after all, the seat belt is just there, already in the car, you don’t have to remember it and carry it about with you) whereas there is evidence that compulsory helmet laws deter cycling.
Really you seem to have entirely failed to grasp he points being made. This is why these arguments come back again and again – many of the pro-helmet-law people don’t seem to be able to understand the argument.
A few thoughts
A few thoughts
1) I’d be more inclined to take the view of a paramedic that deals with accidents on a regular basis than those who dont
2) I don’t understand why road cyclists are so anti helmet.. Most other sports where there is a risk of falling and hitting your head have embraced helmets, I’ve noticed it particularly with snowsports. Out of interest are mountain bikers anti helmet too?
3) its very easy to find studies for or against helmets, but on the most simplistic level personally I would think that a hard plastic shell is likely to offer more protection than nothing at all
4) I’d be very wary of taking two or three variables, as some of the graphs on this thread do, applying it to a population and saying a causes b
LJS wrote:
On point 2. I think you’ll find that the people suggesting helmets not be compulsory are not road cyclists in the sense of sports/racing. Rather, they are people who happen to ride bikes to get from A to B / go to the shops / &c. If you are riding at speed while in a race then a helmet does make more sense. Nobody tells motorists to wear helmets to drive to B&Q (despite what some of the studies show), but they’re mandatory if you’re racing Formula One.
On point three: I’ve come off my bike a handful of times. Only once involving another vehicle (a dooring). And my head has never been the bit that hit the ground or got hurt. Going on my own injuries, I think that shoulder- and shin-pads would stop more injuries than helmets…
LJS wrote:
I am not anti helmet, in fact i wear one when I ride almost all of the time. The objection is that the response to any head injury to a cyclist is either ‘wear a helmet’ or ‘lucky he was wearing a helmet, it would have been worse’ the first response is never ‘stop driving metal boxes into people’. If pedestrians suffer head injuries in an RTA the response is not ‘wear a helmet’.
Also remember the helmet is designed to protect only up to a fall from head height. i.e. falling over sideways. it is not intended to protect from high speed impact with metal box. The emergency services might as well tweet #nosteelsafetycage whenever a cyclist is injured by a driver.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Barring one or two absolute psychos, motorists are not driving metal boxes into people on purpose, so expecting motorists to stop doing it is as about as useful as expecting that you never stub your big toe again.
I don’t wear padding at all times on my big toe, shoulder or shins because the consequences of an injury are unlikely to be serious enough to justify the inconvenience. A head injury though? While mixing it with mobile metal on a very hard surface at 15 – 20+ mph?
I would rather be wearing a helmet in the unlikely event of a collision with a motor vehicle and my bonce heading for the kerb, in the same way I would rather be wearing a helmet when facing a fast bowler or taking a blow from a thug wielding a baseball bat. There are no guarantees but it is obvious that my chances of avoiding death or a life changing brain injury are improved if some of the impact energy is absorbed by a well-designed disintegrating polystyrene hat.
They should be compulsory for under 16s on and off road but adults should be allowed to make their own choices.
L.Willo wrote:
No it isn’t, and that’s the problem.
Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because ‘look at the state of my helmet’, but if you look in the right places they’re also busy with evolution-denyers because ‘the eye’ and other such bollocks.
The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.
davel wrote:
I can actually follow you on this one, riding a bike is not an algorithmic safety assessment based on likely trauma if hit by a car. You’ll probably not be very well, helmet or not.
Far better not to hit the car in the first place but this comes down to active and passive safety measures and how a rider uses them to mitigate risk.
As a profile analogy;
Schumacher had a helmet on skiing.
Windydog wrote:
Agreed, but I’d like to add a couple of extra points. Standard bike helmets (i.e. not full face MTB ones) are designed to protect the head during a low speed fall not involving any other parties. When involved in a collision, the forces are orders of magnitude greater and a bike helmet is more or less irrelevant (they aren’t designed for that).
Also, Schumacher’s helmet may have indirectly contributed to his injury due to the GoPro mounted on it: http://road.cc/content/news/133135-did-michael-schumacher%E2%80%99s-helmet-cam-cause-brain-injury
Windydog wrote:
He also, i believe, had a Go-Pro on it? Force multiplier which would have created a pressure point on the helmet outside of scope.
how many cyclists do you see with cameras and light strapped on to their helmets rendering them virtually pointless. I believe the Aus rules ban any attachment to a helmet because they invalidate the tests.
Windydog wrote:
…and there’s evidence that cyclists take more risks while wearing helmets, and drivers around them give them less space… = more risk of collision in the first place?
[/quote]
…and there’s evidence that cyclists take more risks while wearing helmets, and drivers around them give them less space… = more risk of collision in the first place?
[/quote]
Yes, agree. Comes back down to taking responsibility for your own safety. I wear a helmet on bike because I want to take that responsibility, being forced to suddenly makes it much less appealing and am forced into a herd mentality acceptance, and suddenly we’re in that New Zealand graph territory. For a sport where we spend a lot of time hurting voluntarily, sometimes in isolation, being forced into group compliance seems at odds with the aim.
And as an aside, a helmet skiing also because i’m a wrecklessly fast idiot when not in anyone’s else’s way, and I need all the help I can get.
Windydog wrote:
…and there’s evidence that cyclists take more risks while wearing helmets, and drivers around them give them less space… = more risk of collision in the first place?
[/quote]
Yes, agree. Comes back down to taking responsibility for your own safety. I wear a helmet on bike because I want to take that responsibility, being forced to suddenly makes it much less appealing and am forced into a herd mentality acceptance, and suddenly we’re in that New Zealand graph territory. For a sport where we spend a lot of time hurting voluntarily, sometimes in isolation, being forced into group compliance seems at odds with the aim.
And as an aside, a helmet skiing also because i’m a wrecklessly fast idiot when not in anyone’s else’s way, and I need all the help I can get.
[/quote]
there also needs to be more taking of responsibility for not driving into vulnerable road users.
davel wrote:
Absolutely! It never cease to amaze me when car drivers complain of RLJers and rude cyclists and I feel like saying “Look, can you just stop killing so many of us first, then we’ll see about our behaviour”.
[/quote]
[/quote]
there also needs to be more taking of responsibility for not driving into vulnerable road users.
[/quote]
Yes. But we are in conflict and now in an arms race it seems where a helmet forms part of the armoury, and the proportion of bad drivers I would guess is similar but yet numbers are going up.
Stab theory, a million people in a room, some will have knifes, some will be stupid, someone will get stabbed for no good reason.
You can’t legislate for stupidity, just avoid it or live with the risk. If you feel wearing a helmet decreaases that risk, then good on you. The inverse applies though, and I will not condemn a cyclist for not wearing one.
davel wrote:
No it isn’t, and that’s the problem.
Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because ‘look at the state of my helmet’, but if you look in the right places they’re also busy with evolution-denyers because ‘the eye’ and other such bollocks.
The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.— wycombewheeler
What I actually said, is obvious. If my head is going to hit the kerb, I have a choice of absorbing all of the impact or allowing the helmet to absorb some and my skull the rest. The latter is the better option for me.
If I strapped you to a chair, told you that I was going to whack the back of your head hard with a baseball bat and gave you a choice of helmet or no helmet, you would choose helmet, unless you are a liar, have a death wish or are profoundly stupid.
No one should claim that a helmet saved their lives any more than people should claim that they would not have made a difference, as in the case of the poor guy cited in the link above who died from a head injury from a low speed accident. We don’t come with an identical control version of ourselves to see what would have happened in other circumstances.
What you can legitimately claim as you hold up your destroyed helmet is that your injury would have been worse without the helmet absorbing some of the impact, enough to destroy it. If you look at one of those scuffed, shredded helmets and think, mmmm I wouldn’t personally have minded all that extra destructive force applied to my naked scalp, well maybe you’re a masochist or a Darwin award wannabe.
I have no illusion that a helmet will reduce my chances of an accident, or guarantee protection if I am crushed by an HGV or T-boned into next week by a 4WD but I will continue to wear one and insist that my children wear them (I confiscated my son’s bike for a month after I saw him riding without one) and shake my head in bewilderment at those grown adults who quite bizarrely choose not to.
PS Michael Schumacher is alive. After a significant impact with a rock. I am glad he was wearing a helmet. Who knows what medical science might be able to achieve within a decade? Which would be a moot point if his brain was still lying in pieces in the Alps …
LJS wrote:
1/Why?
2/What does sport have to do with the issue? I don’t particularly like sport, myself. and don’t participate in any.
3/Just for cycling or all the time? And how is that relevant to the issue of paramedics making victim-blaming comments?
4/This point surely contradicts your point 1, no? Why aren’t you wary about such comments? You are absolutely entitled (and probably sensible) to be ‘wary’ about statistics but not to simply assert the contrary position with no evidence or argument of your own.
Just throwing this out there.
Just throwing this out there……
Is there any poster on here who is a member of a cycling club who’s rules state you DONT have to wear a helmet on club rides. I know at my club, no helmet equals no ride.
I did a very basic survey a few months back where i simply counted the number of cyclists on both road and mtb’s and noted who did and who didn’t wear a helmet. If my memory serves me right it was nigh on 98% of roadies wore a helmet but a lot less for the mtb’ers.
However nearly all the mtber’s were youngsters flying about the streets and estates.
Not that this means much but IF it became compulsory for helmet use it would have virtually no effect on usage around where i live and work.
stumps wrote:
From experience, would the people using MTBs actually be using them, or would they be using them as a means of transport. Most MTBers use helmets ime, but a lot of people ride MTBs for transport.
The issue i have with helmets is summed up nicely by the NZ study,compulsary helmets=less cyclists. More people cycling means more people not driving which in turn reduces pollution and improves air quality. If someone chooses to wear a helmet i really i don’t care either way. I do care if a change is imposed that results in less people cycling and further trashing the environment i live in.
mrmo wrote:
Totally agree with you and yes nearly all were using them as transport between A and B and not for going downhills. Compulsory helmet use may well come in but with less and less officers on the streets and more and more to do it would be way way down any cop’s to do list.
I wear a helmet for all but
I wear a helmet for all but the shortest, pootling-round-the-park-with-my-kids rides. I do this because races/events (generally sportives, club rides and triathlons) insist that I have to wear one, so I may as well get used to them on training rides/commutes than fiddling with them on the day. Plus my wife would probably nag me if I didn’t. And that’s it. Basically it’s for an easy life.
I haven’t taken the time to become an expert in all the disciplines necessary to be able to make a genuinely objective decision, or considered all the evidence as I should have. Actually, from what I’ve read, from a safety perspective, I’d be better off reversing my wearing strategy: wear for slow pootles, when if I fall off at 8mph and bang my head it might be some use, but not bother with it for 40mph descents and commutes alongside 30/40mph vehicles, where it isn’t likely to make much difference, right?
In short, who knows? But the preaching on here about a polysterene lid saving lives, people being stupid for not wearing a helmet, only being unlucky once, listening to paramedics over people who actually cycle… all based on what? Feeling safer with a lid on?
Those people need to go and read up on sports studies involving head injuries. Those in the helmet-wearing NFL now, those on modern boxing vs bareknuckle, or boxing with 12oz gloves vs UFC-style 4oz. They do exist.
As do ‘expert opinions’ on helmets having unintended consequences vis-a-vis neck injuries, behaviour on the wearers and drivers next to them, the reinforcement of the belief that cyclists need to protect themselves if they dare to use the roads alongside vehicles.
I’d say it’s counter-intuitive, but it really isn’t – unless you don’t understand human behaviour and risk compensation. Maybe if you’re the type of person to throw in a reference to a full-face downhill MTB helmet as though it’s the same as a polystyrene lid. You might feel safer with one on, but don’t lecture people based on what is basically your faith in a bit of plastic.
I was just looking up
I was just looking up statistics on injuries from airbag deployment in cars
I think we should be pressing for helmets and face masks to be compulsory if airbags are fitted . . . . . . . . . !
I wish they’d repeal the
I wish they’d repeal the motorcycle helmet law – I’d enjoy my motorbike more without one… and as for seatbelts…restrictive or what….
Apparently common sense needs
Apparently common sense needs to be legislated. This is a sad path to travel down, if you ride like an idiot, don’t maintain your bike, and ride with a helmet, you’re a fool.
If the inverse is applied, apparently you’re also a fool. Go figure…
Wow, really reaching now ….
Wow, really reaching now ….
Schumacher would have been better off headbutting a rock with his bare head than wearing a crash helmet with a go pro attached …..
L.Willo wrote:
we’ll never know, but quite possibly, yes he would have been better offer not wearing a helmet with a go=pro attached. A helmet on its own MAY have helped, but then comes in the issue of design standards. Cycle helmets are pretty crap.
For a young child they can make some sense, height, impact loads etc. for an adult not so much.
L.Willo: you’re conflating a
L.Willo: you’re conflating a few issues here, and ignoring others.
I’m not slating ALL helmets. Different types of helmet are different. I have no idea whether skiing helmets have reams of evidence that overwhelmingly support their effectiveness. Cycling helmets do not,and some reports suggest that they exacerbate other injuries (eg neck). Why the blanket faith in protective equipment when it’s been credited with making other sports and activities less safe?
If you swung at my head with a baseball bat, a very specific action, I’d take the helmet designed to protect my head from someone swinging a baseball bat at it (though if you wield a bat like you do logic, I might be better off with a jockstrap
).
If you drove at me with a car while waving a bat out of the window, I’d probably choose wearing a few other items of equipment over a polysterene lid.
If I cycle in a way whereby I’m likely to land on my head at 10mph, then I’ll feel safer with a helmet designed for that. I don’t think that makes up a large part of my cycling.
How can you argue for the effectiveness of a safety device 1. while using completely irrelevant scenarios as examples and 2. without quoting some sort of evidence that suggests that a sizeable proportion of majority of bike KSIs were the type of injury that would have been avoided if helmets had been worn?
wearing a helmet whatever you
wearing a helmet whatever you are doing will decrease the chance of head injury. that is not the same as arguing for compulsion or against other measures that may also increase safety. I wear ahelmet when cycling, working with a chainsaw, up ladders when decorating. For me, these are my risky activities. Yes, I could be knocked down as a pedestrian, but i estimate , for me, that is a significantly lower risk than the above activities. I think it is both sensible and responsible to consider the risks of what we do in our daily lives, take such sensible measures we can, and advocate for others eg stronger penalties for bad driving.
What I find really peculiar
What I find really peculiar about stories like this is that the emergency services allow random members of staff (i.e. people who have no specific skills or training in making public statements on behalf of a large organisations) to publish these kind of comments. In many cases this seems not only to be permitted but possitivly encouraged. This practice allows individials’ opinions to be stated as fact; which is clearly unacceptable when they claim to be the view of a larger organisation. Operational staff in our emergency services perform a difficult and vital role already; I don’t understand the logic of giving them this additional responsibilty.
Although I realise it’s a bit different as I work outside of the public sector there is absolutly no way that I would be allowed to publish statements on behalf of my employer as and when I pleased on whatever subject I saw fit.
Matt eaton wrote:
They are the views of the organisation! You think the emergency services should not be in the business of promoting the Highway Code?
Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Went for a run (officially a
Went for a run (officially a sport pedestrian?)this morning and didn’t wear a helmet – am now concerned this is over risky and am looking to buy a running helmet…………………………………