Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Helmets - personal experience

So, I'm not about to proselytize or seek to convert people, this is what I experienced today: (disclosure:  I've always been a sort of fan of helmets though never a fanatic, today made me a firm believer though).

Returning home, gusts of wind, rain starting in earnest.  I took a roundabout that I've taken a thousand times before.  Only difference was that I'd forgotten that just last saturday I had installed a brand new set of Hutchinson sector 28 mm tyres, brilliant on dry pavement, murder on wet, especially when new.

I entered the roundabout (right hand side driving over here) at 32 kmph (about 20 mph I guess) and halfway through, felt the rear wheel slide from under me.  I hit the pavement on my left hip and elbow, then my head just 'bounced' on the tarmac.  Or rather, my Bontrager specter wavecell helmet did.  Picked myself  up almost immediately, saw the proverbial stars and felt a bit dizzy.  A police patrol that saw everything pulled over to ask if I needed medical assistance, which I declined.  Rode home (no real damage to the bike) at a much lower speed than before.

End result:

-  Bit of a headache

- 20 cm of road rash on my left hip (kudos to Assos:  not a nick on their Cento evo bib, under it my skin was virtually gone).  Spraying desinfectant on that was an interesting experience.   Guess I'll be black and blue tomorrow.

- Sore elbow

- Sore ribs

The helmet shows very little sign of impact on the exterior, just some dimples.  On the interior however, the wavecell structure cracked/deformed in the temporal region.  I guess that's what it's designed to do.  I'll have to get a new one but don't doubt for a second that without it I'd have been visiting the casualty ward, riding in a ambulance rather than on my bike.  So for me it's helmets all the way from now on.

For the doubting Thomases (I understand):  yes, I have pics but unfortunately I don't see how to upload them here.  If you can explain how I should do so I'll gladly post them.

 

 

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

71 comments

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Not in the context of an existing downward trend.  Insisting there must be an absolute increase is disengenuous when it wasn't a flatline to begin with.

 

I know you keep insisting "the ratio is meaningless", but that isn't an argument, it's making a noise.  Unless you can prove that the casualty rates are completely independent and have no common factors, which you haven't done.  Arbitrarily declaring anything that contradicts what you want to believe to be 'meaningless' makes rational debate kind of difficult.

If the ratio A:B increases it can mean two completely separate things. Either A has increased or B has decreased. In the context of the seatbelt question, have seatbelts made drivers safer or cyclists less safe? It's impossible to know from the ratio therefore it is meaningless in this context. In trying to answer the question 'Does increasing seatbelt use lead to an increase in risk taking behaviour?' we are faced with a problem in that directly measuring risk taking behaviour is impossible. We are therefore forced to use measurable outcome data as a proxy for risk taking. Accident rates are a good proxy as there are large numbers of accidents so they have greater statistical power and theoretically the accident rate should correlate with risk taking behaviour. Fatality rates are a poor proxy as the numbers are far smaller leading to less statistical power and greater risk of random fluctuation.

 

It's pretty easy to see that it isn't that the denominator has descreased, because the first graph on the page shows that total casualties _went up_ that year.  I already made that point.  You keep invoking 'random fluctuation' while ignoring the fact that the fluctuation that year is much larger than in the other years.  There's an obvious change in the trend there.

 

Still seems to be you are just desperate to avoid a conclusion you don't like.  And as I said already, I doubt any negative influence of seatbelts is very large, and don't assume it has to remain constant over time, but the evidence for the existence of at least some element of risk-compensation appears strong, which is why you keep repeating arguments against it that clearly don't work.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

It's pretty easy to see that it isn't that the denominator has descreased, because the first graph on the page shows that total casualties _went up_ that year.  I already made that point.  You keep invoking 'random fluctuation' while ignoring the fact that the fluctuation that year is much larger than in the other years.  There's an obvious change in the trend there.

 

Still seems to be you are just desperate to avoid a conclusion you don't like.  And as I said already, I doubt any negative influence of seatbelts is very large, and don't assume it has to remain constant over time, but the evidence for the existence of at least some element of risk-compensation appears strong, which is why you keep repeating arguments against it that clearly don't work.

You still can't seem to grasp the problem with your ratio.

You are claiming that the ratio has changed because the cycling fatality number is larger than it would have been without the seatbelt law.

The ratio may also have changed because the motorist fatality rate was lower than it would have been without the seatbelt law.

It's completely impossible to say which of those statements is correct.

That makes the ratio meaningless.

Also the fluctuation in cyclist fatalities isn't larger than other years, the cyclist fatality rate varied by up to 30% per year during the 1980s.

In 1983 the variation was 10%.

Finally the data I've found shows a large drop in car occupant deaths during 1983 undermining your claim that there was no such drop.

Link:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

It's pretty easy to see that it isn't that the denominator has descreased, because the first graph on the page shows that total casualties _went up_ that year.  I already made that point.  You keep invoking 'random fluctuation' while ignoring the fact that the fluctuation that year is much larger than in the other years.  There's an obvious change in the trend there.

 

Still seems to be you are just desperate to avoid a conclusion you don't like.  And as I said already, I doubt any negative influence of seatbelts is very large, and don't assume it has to remain constant over time, but the evidence for the existence of at least some element of risk-compensation appears strong, which is why you keep repeating arguments against it that clearly don't work.

You still can't seem to grasp the problem with your ratio. You are claiming that the ratio has changed because the cycling fatality number is larger than it would have been without the seatbelt law. The ratio may also have changed because the motorist fatality rate was lower than it would have been without the seatbelt law. It's completely impossible to say which of those statements is correct. That makes the ratio meaningless. Also the fluctuation in cyclist fatalities isn't larger than other years, the cyclist fatality rate varied by up to 30% per year during the 1980s. In 1983 the variation was 10%. Finally the data I've found shows a large drop in car occupant deaths during 1983 undermining your claim that there was no such drop. Link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

 

I concede the point about the drop in car occupant deaths in that one year - I was looking at the previous figures you linked to, and not taking into account that the seat-belt law actually came in in January, so the relevant year-on-year comparison would be 82 and 83, rather than 83 and 84, which is what I looked at (on the assumption that law went into effect some time later during '83).  So for that single year you are correct.

 

However, firstly I simply disagree that the ratio is meaningless, becuase there is obvious reason to beleive that death rates for different modes have some common factors and are not completely independent.  And that ratio not only jumps in that particular year, but shows a clear inflection point and change in trend, that is sustained for many years.

 

And that is not only the case for the ratio, but also for the absolute number of fatalities, as seen in the first graph on the original article I linked to.  There is no decline in overall casualties from '83, in fact it _was_ declining up till that year, but then flatlines till around 1991, something that is also visible on the figures you just linked to above.

 

So I still see no strong evidence that the seat-belt law had much beneficial effect, and there's some evidence that overall it had a negative effect on safetly for those outside the vehicle.  Personally I don't really care about the safety of the driver - that's under their own control and up to them.  It's their choice how much risk they want to take with their own safety, but it should not be their choice to take risks with the safety of others. 

And even a small increase in risk for those outside would be a strong argument against compulsory seat-belt laws.

 

Edit - in fact this debate makes me more inclined to be anti-compusory-car-safety measures, insofar as there's even a possibility of side-effects causing harm to third-parties (see also A-frames that reduce visibility). 

 

I recall being very much in favour of the seat-belt law back when it came in, but these days I'm much more skeptical about it, partly as a side-effect of the bike helmet argument.  Risk-compensation appears to be an undeniable fact of human psychology - if you reduce the risk of negative concequences for doing something people will be more likely to do that thing (see also speeding and lack of legal enforcement of speed limits).  And if doing that thing has harmful effects on others, that is a potential problem.

We can argue endlessly with the very small amount of data available on the topic, but actually the lack of attention paid to the effect on people outside the vehicle, in the original arguments about seat-belts, is quite startling.  That ought to have been the number one consideration, now I come to think about it.

 

 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I concede the point about the drop in car occupant deaths in that one year - I was looking at the previous figures you linked to, and not taking into account that the seat-belt law actually came in in January, so the relevant year-on-year comparison would be 82 and 83, rather than 83 and 84, which is what I looked at (on the assumption that law went into effect some time later during '83).  So for that single year you are correct.

 

However, firstly I simply disagree that the ratio is meaningless, becuase there is obvious reason to beleive that death rates for different modes have some common factors and are not completely independent.  And that ratio not only jumps in that particular year, but shows a clear inflection point and change in trend, that is sustained for many years.

 

And that is not only the case for the ratio, but also for the absolute number of fatalities, as seen in the first graph on the original article I linked to.  There is no decline in overall casualties from '83, in fact it _was_ declining up till that year, but then flatlines till around 1991, something that is also visible on the figures you just linked to above.

 

So I still see no strong evidence that the seat-belt law had much beneficial effect, and there's some evidence that overall it had a negative effect on safetly for those outside the vehicle.  Personally I don't really care about the safety of the driver - that's under their own control and up to them.  It's their choice how much risk they want to take with their own safety, but it should not be their choice to take risks with the safety of others. 

And even a small increase in risk for those outside would be a strong argument against compulsory seat-belt laws.

 

Edit - in fact this debate makes me more inclined to be anti-compusory-car-safety measures, insofar as there's even a possibility of side-effects causing harm to third-parties (see also A-frames that reduce visibility). 

 

I recall being very much in favour of the seat-belt law back when it came in, but these days I'm much more skeptical about it, partly as a side-effect of the bike helmet argument.  Risk-compensation appears to be an undeniable fact of human psychology - if you reduce the risk of negative concequences for doing something people will be more likely to do that thing (see also speeding and lack of legal enforcement of speed limits).  And if doing that thing has harmful effects on others, that is a potential problem.

 

 

The difficulty with the risk compensation argument in both this context and the context of bicycle helmets is the lack of real world data to support it.

If risk compensation actually existed in these contexts then a large increase in the use of protective equipment would cause an increase in risk taking and an increase in accidents.

That wasn't the case with either seat belts or bicycle helmets.

If the increase in risk taking is not sufficient to affect the accident rate then it either doesn't exist or is so small as to be inconsequential.

The change in ratio you refer to cannot be reliably attributed to an increase in danger to cyclists, it may also have occurred due to a safer environment for motorists.

As such it is of no value in this discussion.

The shared environment argument doesn't change that. While some elements of road safety are shared, others are unique to motorists/cyclists etc.

The law changes in 1983 may have disproportionately increased safety for motorists therefore changing the ratio.

This does not necessarily mean that cycling became any more dangerous.

All a ratio change tells us is that one group has been affected by a new factor more than the other group. It doesn't tell us which group or if the factor was positive or negative.

Avatar
Griff500 replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So I still see no strong evidence that the seat-belt law had much beneficial effect, and there's some evidence that overall it had a negative effect on safetly for those outside the vehicle. 

Isn't the Harvard study carried out in the US the most relevant source of "evidence"?

I say this because they specifically looked firstly at actual seatbelt usage rates, rather than the date laws were passed, and they looked specifically for risk compensation factors (the Peltzman effect), and concluded "we conclude that the effect of usage rate on non-occupant fatalities is nonpositive, and that there is thus no support to the Peltzman effect"

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
2 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

And just like helmets, the benefits have yet to be proved.  Sure, they save some drivers and passengers, but because of risk compensation, more pedestrians and cyclists die.  The safest car wouldn't have seat belts, air bags, side impact bars or any other kind of preservation device for the driver, but it would have a rusty 14" bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel.

Basically, we've approached road safety from completely the wrong angle, and instead of making it safer, we've made driving more survivable so that people drive more recklessly, putting vulnerable road users at greater risk.

As with pretty much every 'fact' you post this is not really true. If seat belts actually induced more risk taking then the number of car accidents and cyclist KSIs would both have risen the year after seat belts became mandatory in the UK. They both fell after 1991 and the accident rate fell after 1983.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Seat belts would increase collisions if it was the sole thing that happened at that time, but the road traffic act which introduced them had many other elements, including the breathalyser and drink driving laws.  Seat belts increase the likelihood of collisions, but if another element introduced at the same time reduced it by more, the effect would be swamped.  The same RTA introduced motorcycle helmets, and similarly, the predicted life-saving effects have never been realised.

Parliament commissioned a report on seat belts in countries which already had a law, The Isles Report, which was completed before the vote on the RTA, but it was never published, because it showed that more people would be killed than would be saved.

Do try to keep up.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to burtthebike | 4 years ago
0 likes
Burtthebike wrote:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Seat belts would increase collisions if it was the sole thing that happened at that time, but the road traffic act which introduced them had many other elements, including the breathalyser and drink driving laws.  Seat belts increase the likelihood of collisions, but if another element introduced at the same time reduced it by more, the effect would be swamped.  The same RTA introduced motorcycle helmets, and similarly, the predicted life-saving effects have never been realised.

Parliament commissioned a report on seat belts in countries which already had a law, The Isles Report, which was completed before the vote on the RTA, but it was never published, because it showed that more people would be killed than would be saved.

Do try to keep up.

There were 1670 fewer accidents due to drink driving in 1983 compared to 1982.

There were 13,131 fewer accidents in total during the same period.

So the crack down on drink driving accounted for 1/8 of the fall.

You're suggesting that another factor accounted for not only the 11,461 fewer accidents that year but also the huge number of accidents caused by the seatbelts.

Care to suggest what that factor might be?

Drink driving stats:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
Burtthebike wrote:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Seat belts would increase collisions if it was the sole thing that happened at that time, but the road traffic act which introduced them had many other elements, including the breathalyser and drink driving laws.  Seat belts increase the likelihood of collisions, but if another element introduced at the same time reduced it by more, the effect would be swamped.  The same RTA introduced motorcycle helmets, and similarly, the predicted life-saving effects have never been realised.

Parliament commissioned a report on seat belts in countries which already had a law, The Isles Report, which was completed before the vote on the RTA, but it was never published, because it showed that more people would be killed than would be saved.

Do try to keep up.

There were 1670 fewer accidents due to drink driving in 1983 compared to 1982. There were 13,131 fewer accidents in total during the same period. So the crack down on drink driving accounted for 1/8 of the fall. You're suggesting that another factor accounted for not only the 11,461 fewer accidents that year but also the huge number of accidents caused by the seatbelts. Care to suggest what that factor might be? Drink driving stats: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Which bit of "Do try to keep up." did you miss?

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to burtthebike | 4 years ago
0 likes
burtthebike wrote:

Which bit of "Do try to keep up." did you miss?

I asked you a simple question Burt.

You can try to deflect but the fact is that, as with almost everything else you post, your seatbelt claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

You've got 10,000+ fewer accidents in the year after seatbelts became compulsory even once you account for a reduction in drink driving.

How do you account for that?

If you can't account for it then your the argument that increased seatbelt use led to more risk taking by drivers is baseless.

Avatar
Boatsie replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

Which bit of "Do try to keep up." did you miss?

I asked you a simple question Burt.

You can try to deflect but the fact is that, as with almost everything else you post, your seatbelt claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

You've got 10,000+ fewer accidents in the year after seatbelts became compulsory even once you account for a reduction in drink driving.

How do you account for that?

If you can't account for it then your the argument that increased seatbelt use led to more risk taking by drivers is baseless.

Bump bump. Bumper cars were often used as drivers Ed. Maybe there were more accidents than the bother of reports..
Ignition systems were also on a fast learning curve of ability to keep up. Primary take off sensors, points heading towards a childs view of, "what do they do? Where did they go? Watt bridge! Wow you're old too, just like that, why didn't you use lines and night mares with a flash light? " Hence with electronic enhancements in engineering converting liquid gold into torque, by the time ABS had stopped the vehicle, everyone had time to read something stupid like this hence seatbelts reduced accidents because it took longer to operate the vehicle with pre, post seat belt movement therefore less driving was done and done in more advanced vehicles regarding primary safety. (The avoidance of collision).
Glad my bicycle hasn't a seatbelt, please don't tell the government.

:). (Probably won't make sense to me when I read but posting..)

Avatar
Htc replied to burtthebike | 4 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

Bit like seat belts I guess. My fathers generation need to be reminded to use them, mine sticks them on most of the time and my neice would put her on like she picks up her phone. 

Compulsion and fear of getting caught has brought this about.

And just like helmets, the benefits have yet to be proved.  Sure, they save some drivers and passengers, but because of risk compensation, more pedestrians and cyclists die.  The safest car wouldn't have seat belts, air bags, side impact bars or any other kind of preservation device for the driver, but it would have a rusty 14" bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel.

Basically, we've approached road safety from completely the wrong angle, and instead of making it safer, we've made driving more survivable so that people drive more recklessly, putting vulnerable road users at greater risk.

100% agree. Not that seatbelts were the key to this change but the entire experience of driving has changed. Modern cars insulate you from the outside world, road noise, sense of speed, reduced impact of bumps, improved handling, acceleration etc. Etc. These all contribute to increased confidence and lack of awareness of speed and surroundings because you are exceptionally safe.

 

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 4 years ago
4 likes

These threads are the ultimate trolling on this board.  Chapeau, OP.

Avatar
L3gion | 4 years ago
2 likes

Glad to hear you are OK after all that!

Personally speaking, my hutchinson sector 32s are hanging up gathering dust and I will never fit them again after a few damp rides that scared the beejezus outta me. I'm amazed you seemed to know they were this bad in the wet - and then bought another pair!? 

Avatar
Xenophon2 replied to L3gion | 4 years ago
0 likes

L3gion wrote:

Glad to hear you are OK after all that!

Personally speaking, my hutchinson sector 32s are hanging up gathering dust and I will never fit them again after a few damp rides that scared the beejezus outta me. I'm amazed you seemed to know they were this bad in the wet - and then bought another pair!? 

I know.  The thing is, I really, really like them on dry surfaces and they're rock solid as a tubeless tyre.    Usually the grip in the wet improves after a couple 100 km but I had stupidly forgotten all about them being new while riding home and thinking about some work-stuff.  Had a couple of close calls in the past but never actually fell, this is my first fall in 5 years and 40k km of commuting  (club rides are a different matter).   Kissing the ground yesterday has dampened my love somewhat, come mid October I usually take them off (riding them in frosty conditions would be sheer madness) and we'll see if i put 'm back on again come mid April.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to L3gion | 4 years ago
0 likes

L3gion wrote:

Glad to hear you are OK after all that!

Personally speaking, my hutchinson sector 32s are hanging up gathering dust and I will never fit them again after a few damp rides that scared the beejezus outta me. I'm amazed you seemed to know they were this bad in the wet - and then bought another pair!? 

ditto!

Hutchinson Sector 32s have been binned after a disasterous winter season where they saw me on my arse more than once. Does anyone have recommendations for a 32c tubeless ready tyre that does grip in the wet?

Avatar
L3gion replied to kevvjj | 4 years ago
0 likes

kevvjj wrote:

L3gion wrote:

Glad to hear you are OK after all that!

Personally speaking, my hutchinson sector 32s are hanging up gathering dust and I will never fit them again after a few damp rides that scared the beejezus outta me. I'm amazed you seemed to know they were this bad in the wet - and then bought another pair!? 

ditto!

Hutchinson Sector 32s have been binned after a disasterous winter season where they saw me on my arse more than once. Does anyone have recommendations for a 32c tubeless ready tyre that does grip in the wet?

I've seen quite a lot of posts on other forums along the same lines. When I questioned Hutchinson about what pressures they should actually be run at I got very confusing replies that contradicted both the website and the packaging. And even at very low pressures, they still slid and locked up freely at any sign of dampness. Never again for me.

They're 30 not 32, but from experience Schwalbe G-one speeds stick like glue in the wet (but don't last all that long).

I've got some 32mm WTB exposures on the way so will soon find out what they're like as well.

Avatar
Xenophon2 replied to L3gion | 4 years ago
0 likes

L3gion wrote:

 

I've seen quite a lot of posts on other forums along the same lines. When I questioned Hutchinson about what pressures they should actually be run at I got very confusing replies that contradicted both the website and the packaging. And even at very low pressures, they still slid and locked up freely at any sign of dampness. Never again for me.

They're 30 not 32, but from experience Schwalbe G-one speeds stick like glue in the wet (but don't last all that long).

I've got some 32mm WTB exposures on the way so will soon find out what they're like as well.

 

I put the same questions regarding pressure to Hutchinson, the sidewall of the 28 mm states 6-7 bar (87 to 101 psi).  That's simply way too hard for me (75 kg), I bounce all over the place.  They replied that the upper limit was definitely 7 bar but that the lower limit depended on rider weight, terrain and individual preference, which I guess is in essence the truth but not very concrete advice.  I currently run them at about 5 bar (72 psi) and for me that's the right balance.  I did mount them tubeless.  Why they state the minimum inflation pressure at 6 bar on the tyre???

 

Avatar
Jimnm | 4 years ago
1 like

I swear by Lazer helmets, just the basic ones not the mips. Pay £50 or so, saves your head and doesn’t break the bank to replace. I never go out on a ride without a helmet. 

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 4 years ago
4 likes

This is exactly why I wear a helmet too.  It won't stop a left-hook from an Audi or a taxi, but it might just save my head from wiping out on a patch of gravel in a corner, a wet manhole cover or a slippery leaf.  I might only have to get it wrong once, and frankly I don't find wearing one uncomfortable or restricting, so it's fine.

But should it be compulsory?  Absolutely, 100% hell no.

Avatar
joeegg | 4 years ago
4 likes

No rabid anti helmet commentators on here ? Come on,pull the other one !

Avatar
Organon replied to joeegg | 4 years ago
1 like

joeegg wrote:

No rabid anti helmet commentators on here ? Come on,pull the other one !

Well, some of them are on a short 'holiday' because of other things they might have said. At least this helmet debate has been a bit more refreshing as such. We've heard from some people who have crashes and don't wear helmets. It seems like people just make a decision early on about wearing them or not. Those who do wear think it made the difference and those who don't just suck up their licks. One thing is certain, we all crash.  

I personally got left hooked at speed when I was 23, went over a bonnet and broke my elbow and collar bone. Did a forward roll, my arms took the impact. Whilst it is true you will naturally protect your head, I am not infallible and others aren't either, so I started wearing a helmet regularly after that. 

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Organon | 4 years ago
2 likes

Organon wrote:

joeegg wrote:

No rabid anti helmet commentators on here ? Come on,pull the other one !

Well, some of them are on a short 'holiday' because of other things they might have said. At least this helmet debate has been a bit more refreshing as such. We've heard from some people who have crashes and don't wear helmets. It seems like people just make a decision early on about wearing them or not.

...

 

well, no, I don't think people necessarily make a decision. When I started cycling in the 1960s nobody wore a helmet, and I don't think there has ever been a point where I've explicitly decided not to wear one, I have simply never worn one; I have never seen any convincing evidence to make me decide otherwise.

with helmets now being so prevalent, and from observing the growth in their use, I suggest that a very large number of younger people have worn helmets since their parents made them wear one, and it has become second nature to them, so they probably haven't decided either.

sometime in the 80s and 90s a lot of people who grew up in the pre-helmet days must have decided to switch, but i'd be astonished if very many people otherwise have ever given it much thought one way or another.

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to joeegg | 4 years ago
1 like

joeegg wrote:

No rabid anti helmet commentators on here ? Come on,pull the other one !

As I've already pointed out, anecdotes are useless as evidence, so you'll be able to post multiple examples of these "rabid anti helmet commentators" to conclusively prove your case.  Otherwise it's just like the the case for helmets.laugh

Or perhaps you're using some definition of rabid which includes pointing out that the data shows that helmets aren't effective, and other facts like that?

Avatar
giff77 | 4 years ago
4 likes

Years ago I came off my bike while negotiating a tight turn when my toe caught the front wheel due to me not concentrating. Gave my head a right auld crack on the road and had a cracker of an egg for a few days. No concussion though. I did badly stave my wrist  which made work challenging due to the amount of lifting I need to do. Cycling was challenging as well to say the least. 

Speaking of concussions. I actually wound up with more of these on the rugby pitch. 

I would raise the question though of would your head have made contact if it didn’t have the extra circumference?  Apparently are bodies are pretty good at protecting themselves naturally without our having to put any thought into it.  

Glad the OP is grand though. But more importantly. Is the bike ok?

Avatar
Organon | 4 years ago
0 likes

Ah, the old magic injury transferring bibshorts.

There are quite a few rabid anti-helmet commentators around here. Frankly this is exactly what they are designed for. I don't care how any amount of taking care or 'riding to conditions' can prepare you for every eventuality. Sure a helmet won't protect you from a left hook from a white Audi, but it did it's job here. I've only scraped my helmet on the road on a little chute and still have the same one, I've never been concussed, but it still saved me some lost hair and face rash, who knows what, and that was caused by pigeon shit on a wet underpass.

I'll take the acedotal evidence every time because strangely enough we don't here from the people hitting their heads sans helmet and then saying 'I was fine.' Please come forward if this is you.

Please don't conflate being pro-helmet to being pro-complusion, I still ride to the shop was just a cap. 

Ride on Xenophon2.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Organon | 4 years ago
2 likes

Organon wrote:

...

I'll take the acedotal evidence every time because strangely enough we don't here from the people hitting their heads sans helmet and then saying 'I was fine.' Please come forward if this is you.

...

ok. I've had two cycling incidents as an adult.

In the first one nobody else was involved, and I fell off my bike while negotiating a kerb. I bumped my head on the pavement quite hard, no damage. I also broke my wrist.

In the second one I rode fast into a car turning right across me - I had priority. I went flying over the handlebars, bounced off the car and landed on the pavement. I bumped my head quite hard, no damage. I went to hospital because my arm hurt; they told me it was broken. Then two weeks later they told me it wasn't.

glad the OP is ok.

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Organon | 4 years ago
7 likes

Organon wrote:

There are quite a few rabid anti-helmet commentators around here.

I'll take the acedotal evidence every time because strangely enough we don't here from the people hitting their heads sans helmet and then saying 'I was fine.' Please come forward if this is you.

There are quite a few anti-lies, fairy tales and assumption commentators around here, but I haven't seen any anti-helmet commentators, rabid or otherwise.

There's a very good reason no sensible person takes anecdotes as reliable evidence, because it isn't.  Reliable evidence is gathered over time, from the best available raw data, like over twenty five years of helmet laws in Australia and New Zealand.

I've posted several times about when I've fallen off and been knocked off a number of times, all without a helmet, and I'm still alive, and some of them included hitting my head, and there are many others who have posted exactly the same experience, but you state categorically that "we don't here (sic) from" them.

You might like to check the mirror next time you accuse other people of being rabid.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Organon | 4 years ago
3 likes

Organon wrote:

I'll take the acedotal evidence every time because strangely enough we don't here from the people hitting their heads sans helmet and then saying 'I was fine.' Please come forward if this is you.

Please don't conflate being pro-helmet to being pro-complusion, I still ride to the shop was just a cap.

I've come off only a handful of times and as I remember I was wearing a helmet for most of those, but I've never hit my head coming off a bike. Most of my offs were due to extra slippery conditions (the old CheeseGrater bridge, black ice etc) though I did a nice one whilst borrowing my wife's (then girlfriend) bike and had the chain jump off as I was doing some serious acceleration away from lights - managed to tear a little chunk from a finger. I've done a couple of sideways slides into vehicles with no damage sustained and twice had a vehicle clip my rear wheel though neither time did I come off.

As a slight aside, I've come off hundreds of times whilst riding a unicycle (never wore any protection whilst riding one) and only once had any injury - I was experimenting with toe-clips and as I ducked underneath an overhanging willow tree, I hit the lamppost that was hiding there. I didn't get my feet free to do a controlled "step-off", so I ended up taking the fall onto my outstretched hand which did something nasty to my wrist - couldn't take any weight on it for a couple of months.

On the flip side, I've hit overhanging branches with my helmet a couple of times and was glad of the protection, though that would have just been an 'ow' rather than a concussion etc.

So in conclusion, I don't see much benefit in a helmet though I always wear one now (the wife gets anxious if I don't). Gloves, on the other hand, have definitely saved me some skin.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't see much benefit in a helmet though I always wear one now (the wife gets anxious if I don't).

My wife insists I should wear a helmet because this one time driving through town she saw a woman come off and get taken away in an ambulance.

I wear a helmet if its icy or snowy (admittedly, how often is that nowadays?) or if my wife catches me before I've left the house... 

Avatar
Awavey replied to Organon | 4 years ago
3 likes

Organon wrote:

I'll take the acedotal evidence every time because strangely enough we don't here from the people hitting their heads sans helmet and then saying 'I was fine.' Please come forward if this is you.

Ive flown over the handlebars in a crash, landed on my head, still have the visible scar from when I used my head to stop a somersault on a balance beam, and face planted more than once when Ive lost my footing, I certainly know what concussion feels like, if anything I should wear a helmet as a pedestrian as Im far more likely to hit my head just walking along on past history

Pages

Latest Comments