[road]

Every time helmets get mentioned a crowd of people come out frothing at the mouth to declare that they’re a big boy who doesn’t want to wear a helmet. Why is it such a touchy subject?

Topic

[ChrisB200SX]

You have this backwards. You

You have this backwards. You either know this and ignore it, or are too dim to realise it. It is the group who thinks everyone should wear helmets that are the frothy-mouthed problem.

They just need to shut-up and let everyone make their own personal choice without spouting off about other people’s freedom of choice. It really is that simple.

The question really is why is it such as touchy subject for the helmet evangalists, why can they not just mind their own business?

[wycombewheeler]

ChuckSneed wrote:

Then why would you wear a helmet if you don’t believe that they work. Weird choice.

I have a helmet because club membership demads I wear one on club rides

I also ride off road where the risks are different and helmets are more effective.

I would not buy a helmet if my only cycling was commuting to wor. I have had a few offs over the years both with and without a helmet and never had a head injury, although I have damaged helmets. The question occurs to me, did the helmet save my head from hitting the floor (potentially saving me from a mangled ear and grazing) or did the helmet only contact the floor because it is wider than my head?

Other benefits of a helmet

• somewhere to mount a light or camera
• reduced possibility of a reduced compensation payout due to contributory factor
• keeps my hat from blowing off
• brightly coloured helmet can aid visibility

[wycombewheeler]

ChuckSneed wrote:

ChuckSneed wrote:

I won’t lie, you seem like you’re frothing at the mouth the way that you went out of your way to open loads of reviews. Relax, it’s just a helmet. It won’t hurt you. It will actually do the opposite.

which entirely explains why countries with mandatory helmet laws havefewer cycling casualties than countries where no one wears them..

oh, hold on the opposite is true.

and also

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317

cost benefit of helmets is less than the cost of a helmet. This is why uk medical bodies stopped calling for mandatory helmets. Helmets just do not stack up as a safety precuation.

[wycombewheeler]

ChuckSneed wrote:

Not sure how allowing us to cycle through red lights makes it safer for us. 

because pulling away from lights at the same time as motor traffic is exactly how cyclists get killed by left turning HGVs.

I think cyclists ar able to give way to other road users when going through a red light, after all everyone manages to give way adequately at most other junctions.

[wycombewheeler]

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

David9694 wrote:

I think helmet advocacy is from the same drawer as photo ID at polling stations.  A risk is cited, but the “solution” doesn’t address it; the system you’re in isn’t going to operate safely, you have to make yourself safe. 

“its just a precaution” 

“it’s no hassle”

“oh, you’ve decided not to bother?”

Thinking of the New Forest car parks I sometimes pas through, when does 

“Put your valuables out of sight” 

“take your valuables with you”

change from crime prevention advice to “you’re on your own, we can’t help you”?

I always struggle following the logic of “doing X doesn’t address the problems, therefore we should not do X”. Why do so many people think that helmets are a waste of time because it does not address the cause of an issue, or does not fully address the issue? People don’t complain about wearing hard hats on building sites – they just get on with it. Yes, people shouldn’t drop tools off scaffolds, but sometimes it happens. The risk owner can do all the sensible things to reduce the risk (fitting toe boards, stowing equipment when not in use, using lanyards on tools, etc) but tools still get dropped and there is still a risk of getting hit on the head with a hammer. Speaking as an advocate for helmet use (though not as an advocate for mandatory helmet use) I also advocate for improved road safety awareness for all road users, stricter enforcement to clamp down on dangerous driving, and a change in licencing approach to require continued competence from drivers. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, nor should it be. And as for the theft example, is police presence in a car park a sensible barrier to prevent your coat getting nicked? Isn’t putting it out of sight or taking it with you much more proportionate?

your analagy falls down, because on bulding sites all sorts of other systems are put in place – toe boards, mesh infill panels, scaffolding fans, and PPE and behaviour modification is the last resort.

While on the roads helmets are the only action being taken.

Are you an advocate for mandatory pedestrian helmet use?

Rates of fatal head injury per bnkm in males aged 17+ for cycling, walking, and driving were 11.2 (95% CI 9.7–12.9), 23.4 (21.8–25.0) and 0.7 (0.6–0.7) respectively

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140518302731

Yes 100,000,000 km travelled per fatal head injury cycling. The risk is vanishing small for anyone popping to the shops or cycling to work.

[hawkinspeter]

ChuckSneed wrote:

According to some other guy in this thread, going through a red light should be allowed for when you’re on a bike, so I’m not sure we can argue against people driving through them if that’s the stance we’re taking.

The Idaho Stop laws have been demonstrably safer for cyclists FACT!

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

The U.S. (probably other places too) do already allow drivers to turn right on red when it’s clear to do so. I’m not convinced that introducing a similar left-on-red law would work very well in the UK as there’s a lot of aggressive drivers out there. Similarly, we can’t trust the majority of drivers to sufficiently look and evaluate whether going through a red light can be performed safely and due to the nature of 2 tonnes of speeding metal, the victims are unlikely to be the drivers.

FACT!

[LeadenSkies]

In my case, because my wife
In my case, because my wife who doesn’t care to read all the science on the subject, thinks they #must# work and keeping her on-side allows me much more freedom to go cycling when and where I want. It’s a means to an end and not a safety measure.

[LeadenSkies]

Ironic really that you seem
Ironic really that you seem ok with pushing your view that everyone should wear a helmet at every opportunity but anyone who holds a different point of view is apparently “frothing at the mouth”. And before you ask, I wear a helmet every time I go out on my bike, road, gravel or mountain but I recognise that it remains a personal choice in 95% of the world. I am also able to look at the science in this and as far as I can see at the moment it is inconclusive on whether cycle helmets are a benefit overall which seems counterintuitive but sometimes that is science for you.

[Kapelmuur]

chrisonatrike wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

I always liked “thieves operate in this area”. Great … why don’t you do something about that then? Or rather – that’s useful to know, could you give me something more helpful – like who they are, or when they operate? Or do you think I should just leave? Can you recommend an area where they don’t operate? Helmets are designed for one type of incident *. I don’t think those noisiest about advocating their use have a good grasp of that limitation. What exactly are they trying to help with? * excepting hawkinspeter’s excellent suggestion about protecting buildings from vehicles with them of course.

A painful reminder of the time my bike was stolen from my car which was parked at Auchan, Calais.

We phoned the police to report the theft and were told, too complacently  I think, “ah yes, there are a lot of thefts from that car park”.

[ShutTheFrontDawes]

I’m more familiar with large
I’m more familiar with large scale sites mostly. And with the exception of a couple of cases, I haven’t heard any complaints about wearing PPE in designated zones. I did work on one site once where bump caps were allowed for certain areas. One chap found his bump cap uncomfortable so took the padding out. A colleague decided to hit his mate on the head with a hammer (not very hard mind you). Both were dismissed.

[Owd Big 'Ead]

Man with a red flag walking
Man with a red flag walking in front of drivists. If nothing else it’ll create a ton of new jobs and make motoring even more expensive, hopefully making a few more motorists face up to the reality that cars aren’t the answer.

[Owd Big 'Ead]

Don’t know which building
Don’t know which building sites you’ve been on, but most sites I work on there’s an above average resentment to being made to wear a helmet, especially if for instance you’re indoors doing shopfitting.
Like cycling helmets you tend to find it’s not a mandatory need to wear one, even if the rules dictate that you do.
Weirdly, I’m far more likely to wear a helmet on site than I am while riding my bike.

[chrisonabike]

I can’t speak for others but

I can’t speak for others but I’m not seeing a lot of “one or the other” from folks here.  It’s almost as if as cyclists knew what worked for them!

I think “both” or “all” is usually a good idea (e.g. better infra AND better road user training AND better enforcement).  Although personally I find I’m wearing a helmet less rather than more when cycling (though I always wore one for some other activities).

The reason for the pushback – as I’m sure you know and others have said – is that the strongest “concern” is usually coming from people who don’t cycle.  Or who could help with some other, more effective measures to make cycling safer but … don’t.  Or are strongly invested in an activity (driving) which is a reason for cycling being less safe.

It comes over as “we have thought of something which can make things safer, you should do it, we’ve done something to make things safer!”

[Sniffer]

Steve K wrote:

When I saw the title of this thread (before I saw our newest troll had posted it) I thought it was going to be about why non-cyclists were so bothered about whether or not people riding bikes wore helmets.

New?

[ShutTheFrontDawes]

David9694 wrote:

David9694 wrote:

I think helmet advocacy is from the same drawer as photo ID at polling stations.  A risk is cited, but the “solution” doesn’t address it; the system you’re in isn’t going to operate safely, you have to make yourself safe. 

“its just a precaution” 

“it’s no hassle”

“oh, you’ve decided not to bother?”

Thinking of the New Forest car parks I sometimes pas through, when does 

“Put your valuables out of sight” 

“take your valuables with you”

change from crime prevention advice to “you’re on your own, we can’t help you”?

I always struggle following the logic of “doing X doesn’t address the problems, therefore we should not do X”. Why do so many people think that helmets are a waste of time because it does not address the cause of an issue, or does not fully address the issue?

People don’t complain about wearing hard hats on building sites – they just get on with it. Yes, people shouldn’t drop tools off scaffolds, but sometimes it happens. The risk owner can do all the sensible things to reduce the risk (fitting toe boards, stowing equipment when not in use, using lanyards on tools, etc) but tools still get dropped and there is still a risk of getting hit on the head with a hammer.

Speaking as an advocate for helmet use (though not as an advocate for mandatory helmet use) I also advocate for improved road safety awareness for all road users, stricter enforcement to clamp down on dangerous driving, and a change in licencing approach to require continued competence from drivers.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other, nor should it be.

And as for the theft example, is police presence in a car park a sensible barrier to prevent your coat getting nicked? Isn’t putting it out of sight or taking it with you much more proportionate?

[Author]

Replies