Why do people care so much about other people wearing helmets?

ChuckSneed wrote:

This kind of furious response what I was referring to

LOL. This incorrect comment perfectly proves my point.

Cilla Black is on tv tonight on channel 5. Should be a lorra lorra laughs chuck.

People don't seem to talk about what's on the telly tonight any more.  I miss that.  I don't own a telly though so I can't get that going again.  Unless I was like your brother.  Then maybe I could say that I'd been watching Big Brother with Cilla Black, Ivor Cutler, Dame Edna Everage and Lloyd Grossman and my ears were squirming with aural pleasure.

Well there's a programme about Burt Bacharach and Hal David on so I'll probably watch that. Roland Kirk (not Ronald) did a great version of the hit song "Alfie" years ago. I've been to the dentist today for a check up, such a relief when they say everything is ok, been dreading going fow weeks. Apparently George Formby was Britain's highest paid entertainer for five years. Who would have thought that? You wouldn't like my brother.

No telly, cycles, bet you have a beard too !

Ha!  That's where you're falling into cheap stereotypes!  I may own a recumbent but I don't possess any SPD sandals *, nor would I wear them with socks if I had them.

If I did have a beard though it would probably be more "Open University lecturer" than "wild man of rock".

* Foot retention is a good idea on a recumbent, more for extra relaxation than in fear of "foot suck".

My dad used to call me the wild man of Borneo. I don't think he meant it as a compliment.

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?

That reminds me of the fact that there are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand the binary system and those who don't 

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 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.

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".

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?

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!"

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.

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.

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.

Did you miss the bit where I said "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."

There are lots of things I think should be done to improve the safety of cyclists. Not wearing a helmet isn't one of those things.

It'd be like saying "gee this job site hasn't got any safety protections in place! No toe boards, no lanyards, no mesh panels, no safe systems of work! Better take off your helmets lads!".

Daft.

wycombewheeler wrote:

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

Can I just check my understanding of this...

The head injury rate for cyclists, an activity where it is recommended that people wear helmets, and indeed where many people do wear helmets is lower than the head injury rate for walking, where no-one wears a helmet.

And you think this supports an argument that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets?

Perhaps you should rethink that one?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

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

Can I just check my understanding of this... The head injury rate for cyclists, an activity where it is recommended that people wear helmets, and indeed where many people do wear helmets is lower than the head injury rate for walking, where no-one wears a helmet. And you think this supports an argument that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets? Perhaps you should rethink that one?

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren't you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

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

Can I just check my understanding of this... The head injury rate for cyclists, an activity where it is recommended that people wear helmets, and indeed where many people do wear helmets is lower than the head injury rate for walking, where no-one wears a helmet. And you think this supports an argument that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets? Perhaps you should rethink that one?

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren't you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Is it dangerous though, or is it just that helmet use has been effective for cycling? One would think that cycling, with greater speeds and more interaction with motor vehicles (for to being on the road more) would result in higher rates of head injury, but according to the data posted, the rates are actually lower - What's causing that? Helmets would provide a logical causal relationship.

But perhaps you're right and wearing a helmet as a pedestrian would be logical - I don't know. What I do think however, is that I don't look stupid wearing a helmet as a cyclist, but I think I would look stupid wearing one as a pedestrian.

I do also subscribe to the same logic as Martin in that the highway code says I should wear one, therefore I wear one. I refuse to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself to, and I want other road users to overtake safely and give me space, and abide by all the other 'should' statements in the highway code.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren't you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Is it dangerous though, or is it just that helmet use has been effective for cycling? One would think that cycling, with greater speeds and more interaction with motor vehicles (for to being on the road more) would result in higher rates of head injury, but according to the data posted, the rates are actually lower - What's causing that? Helmets would provide a logical causal relationship.

I would suggest that at a rate of one death per billion vehicle miles that cycling is not actually a dangerous activity, if you want to wear a helmet then that is fine by me but I'm not going to bother at that level of risk.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

But perhaps you're right and wearing a helmet as a pedestrian would be logical - I don't know. What I do think however, is that I don't look stupid wearing a helmet as a cyclist, but I think I would look stupid wearing one as a pedestrian.

If you took your current helmet back in time 40 years you would have looked stupid wearing it as a cyclist, would you stop wearing it just because you got caught in a time warp?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I do also subscribe to the same logic as Martin in that the highway code says I should wear one, therefore I wear one. I refuse to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself to, and I want other road users to overtake safely and give me space, and abide by all the other 'should' statements in the highway code.

Wearing or not wearing a helmet only changes the risk to yourself, if close passing only risked the driver then you might have a point.

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren't you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Is it dangerous though, or is it just that helmet use has been effective for cycling? One would think that cycling, with greater speeds and more interaction with motor vehicles (for to being on the road more) would result in higher rates of head injury, but according to the data posted, the rates are actually lower - What's causing that? Helmets would provide a logical causal relationship.

I would suggest that at a rate of one death per billion vehicle miles that cycling is not actually a dangerous activity, if you want to wear a helmet then that is fine by me but I'm not going to bother at that level of risk.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

But perhaps you're right and wearing a helmet as a pedestrian would be logical - I don't know. What I do think however, is that I don't look stupid wearing a helmet as a cyclist, but I think I would look stupid wearing one as a pedestrian.

If you took your current helmet back in time 40 years you would have looked stupid wearing it as a cyclist, would you stop wearing it just because you got caught in a time warp?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I do also subscribe to the same logic as Martin in that the highway code says I should wear one, therefore I wear one. I refuse to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself to, and I want other road users to overtake safely and give me space, and abide by all the other 'should' statements in the highway code.

Wearing or not wearing a helmet only changes the risk to yourself, if close passing only risked the driver then you might have a point.

If you want to differentiate between should statements in the highway code and say that some are more important than others, or that some apply but others don't, that's entirely up to you.

I am saying I refuse to do that.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

 

Wearing or not wearing a helmet only changes the risk to yourself, if close passing only risked the driver then you might have a point.

If you want to differentiate between should statements in the highway code and say that some are more important than others, or that some apply but others don't, that's entirely up to you. I am saying I refuse to do that.

No, I reserve the right to take risks with my own safety that I am comfortable with, I do not claim the right to take risks with other people's safety as I do not know what they are comfortable with. Suggesting I should wear a helmet every time I ride is a bit too nanny state for me.

40 years ago I was using a helmet, when I was a junior BMX racer. Now I look back at that, it seems so weird that a helmet was mandatory for a BMX race in the 1980's, but took so long to become normalized on mountain bikes, then road bikes. I guess us BMX kids were ahead of our time!

I'm the lucky position of being able to choose, as most of us on here are. I choose to wear a helmet on the road bike, but not when I'm on my city bike. I have the benefit of some amazing infrastructure here in NL, and my own risk assessment based purely on perception is that I'm more likely to have an off on the road bike at higher speed, than on the commute to the office (must admit to one or two incidents cycling home from the cafe late at night).