The Cult of Bike Helmets (slate.com)

Simon_MacMichael wrote:

I came off the bike last month due to a road defect, hit my head, no helmet, a few hours in A&E waiting for stitches to cut between eyebrow/temple.

I was surprised that during triage etc I wasn't asked whether I had been wearing one, I'd assumed that was standard for cycling-related A&E admissions?

I did get a bit of a grilling over it at family pre-Christmas lunch a few days later, though ... from a sibling who is a solicitor specialising in personal injury claims defence, it felt more like being in the witness box rather than a swish West End restaurant.

(PS The bike was okay(

Did the solicitor accept that the cause of the crash, and therefore injury was the road defect, and that not wearing a magic did not cause the crash (and therefore injury)?

I was asked that after gouging a thick stripe in my knee. I said 'not on my knee' and they left it.

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

I was asked that after gouging a thick stripe in my knee. I said 'not on my knee' and they left it.

I was once taken to hospital from the rugby field with a torn cruciate ligament, where I was asked, "Were you wearing head protection?" My response was exactly the same as yours!

Like a scrum cap is going to protect your head.

hirsute wrote:

Like a scrum cap is going to protect your head.

To be fair no rugby player wears one thinking it will protect their brain (yes I know, as if we have anything to protect, before anyone else gets in there), they wear them, as I did in the later stages of my playing time when I moved into the forwards, to prevent cuts that you will have to leave the field to get treated and to stop cauliflower ears.

Not what is claimed here !

https://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/blog/scrum-caps-rugby/

Always nice when family members are so caring that they lecture you about a subject about which you probably know considerably more than them.

Depending on the fit and shape, a helmet may not have prevented the cut anyway. A few years ago a group of clubmates came down while riding on a closed circuit when a rabbit ran across the tarmac. My friend's helmet didn't prevent a sizeable gash across her cheekbone, which thankfully didn't require medical attention.

.

How was the meal?

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

How was the meal?

Fantastic - Zedel, faux-Parisian brasserie behind Picadilly Circus, amazing space and lovely food; also just round the corner from Rapha for post-lunch shopping purposes.

Brauchsel wrote:

This was my main takeaway on an individual basis:

"Regardless, experts I spoke to were unanimous about what these flaws don’t mean: that helmets are useless. They all believe you should wear one."

I know a helmet will do fuck-all if I'm run over by a bus. And I know it isn't fair or right that motorists can kill or injure cyclists with impunity, and that infrastructure could and should be a lot better. But I've fallen and hit my head on and off bikes, with and without helmets, and the next time I fall off a bike at the sort of lowish speeds I generally do I want the helmet to crack and not my skull.
 

I don't think it should be a legal requirement, but I'm baffled by the mindset of those who see it as an impediment. I don't think I've ever ridden anywhere I couldn't leave my helmet, and back when I had hair it didn't get any messier than it would have been under a different hat or in the wind.

I wear a helmet probably about 75-80% of the time. The main reason when I don't is because it'll be a ball ache carrying it on a mixed journey. Am I convinced it'll help me... I'm not. I'm sure there are some circumstances it will, I am sure there are more circumstances where it won't. But the majority of the time I'll wear one because it's no big deal.

I do, however, bristle at the way non-helmet use has become a byword for fuck em', they had it coming to them.

Same. Since starting cycling again a few years ago I have had two accidents, both at low speed and not involving a car. One where a bee flew into my face and I fell off, the other on a greasy road where the bikd slipped out on a corner and I hit my head on a kerb. Both instances I was glad I was wearing a helmet.

It amuses me this eye rolling attitude "cult of bike helmets" jog on FFS. If you don't want to wear a helmet fine, but Christ on a bike (with a helmet? who cares) people can be way more preachy about not wearing helmets.

No-one is preaching "thou shalt not wear a helmet". If people are "preachy", it's about the discourse around bike helmets and public health. I.e. the discussion and societal norms around cyling helmets (even if not legally mandatated) put people off cycling and actively detract from interventions that make cycling safer and more enjoyable, and therefore cause significant harm on a large scale.

Do feel free to drop by my local Facebook pages.

Drivers evangelise on this because they think it will make matters less serious if there is a mishap on a i dont know, a close pass. 

Adam Sutton wrote:

Same. Since starting cycling again a few years ago I have had two accidents, both at low speed and not involving a car. One where a bee flew into my face and I fell off, the other on a greasy road where the bikd slipped out on a corner and I hit my head on a kerb. Both instances I was glad I was wearing a helmet.

It amuses me this eye rolling attitude "cult of bike helmets" jog on FFS. If you don't want to wear a helmet fine, but Christ on a bike (with a helmet? who cares) people can be way more preachy about not wearing helmets.

All the preaching is performed by police/medical professionals and general public that consider it to be a sign of mental deficiency to cycle without a helmet despite the evidence of far more dangerous activities that they don't consider a helmet to be appropriate for. As Saint Boardsman puts it, helmets aren't even in the top ten of things that would keep cyclists safe.

"All the preaching is performed by police/medical professionals"

Yeah, what would they know about road collisions or head trauma? It's been well established that we've had enough of experts. 

A lot of police that comment are just ordinary coppers, no specific knowledge. RTC investigators deal with the cause of a collision not the efficacy of helmets. Surgeons deal with the trauma outcome not sure they have any knowledge of the helmet design or limitations of them.

Brauchsel wrote:

"All the preaching is performed by police/medical professionals"

Yeah, what would they know about road collisions or head trauma? It's been well established that we've had enough of experts. 

They may well have a lot of experience in their own domains, but that's hardly going to be applicable to engineering issues of head protection and dynamics of how cyclists are likely to contact cars/objects etc. It's like asking a computer engineer to wire your house.

What really bugs me is the police asking nonsense questions about whether cyclists were wearing a helmet when the circumstances of the collision make it utterly meaningless.

Brauchsel wrote:

"All the preaching is performed by police/medical professionals"

Yeah, what would they know about road collisions or head trauma?

Very little.  Just because someone is educated in one field, it doesn't mean that they are an expert in everything.  Doctors and police are not experts in collision mechanics or the benefits/risks of cycling, and tend to be influenced by the collisions they see, thus hardly objective.

Baron Winston for one. Lots of knowledge about many things, just has a bee in his (helmet) bonnet about cyclists...

Not my experience even on here. A previous post I commented similar stating my personal experience. The result was a response along similar lines that no one preaches about not using helmets..... and then to berate and preach about why people shouldn't wear helmets. It was laughably ironic.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Not my experience even on here. A previous post I commented similar stating my personal experience. The result was a response along similar lines that no one preaches about not using helmets..... and then to berate and preach about why people shouldn't wear helmets. It was laughably ironic.

Was it berating and preaching or was it presenting the other side of the story Without a specific example, it is difficult to judge one way or another.

Most of the anti-helmet posts that I've seen have made no recommendation one way or another, but have sought to clarify and determine the facts of the matter. Usually those kinds of exchanges are brought about in response to some public figure stating that they were serious about road safety, so they were looking at bike helmets. That's the preaching that bugs me (and I do wear a bike helmet).

It came from a pulpit.

Adam Sutton wrote:

It came from a pulpit.

That'll be preaching then

Medics have have a necessarily limited highly edited view - they just see the stricken patient in front of them.