Helmets Save Your Bonce

tintin40":3dn16xu0 said:

technodup":3dn16xu0 said:

Helmets are gay.

I don't know what the rest of you are doing but any time I come off a bike it's my hands that take most of the impact. Actually it was my hip the last time as I lost grip in a damp concrete skatepark but the point is the same. Should I be wearing full body armour for pootling around town? Should pedestrians wear helmets in case of being struck by cars? Should some people get off their high horse about the supposed merits of polystyrene hats?

Plus they look absolutely ridiculous.

Click to expand...

agree

Click to expand...

I don't!!!

I came off at Mayhem this year, and as my head raced towards the ground, I saw a rather larger "stump" sticking out of the ground, luckily my helmet took the impact with a rather large "thud"....I got up brushed my self down and thought to myself.."good job I had a helmet on"....could have been nasty.

As this thread seems to be down to personal opinion....in my eyes, if you don't wear a helmet then in the words of James May.."your a cock".......just my opinion!!

Judging by the anti helmet leagues representation here, I definitely think compulsory helmet wear is a no no.

Let natural selection run its course I say.

Don't ask me to pay tax for your iron lungs!

Is it all down to natural selection?

Saw mention of parents without with children with. Could be because they have procreated and and their gene pool will continue in their protected offspring leading to their apparently reckless disregard for personal safety. That is if you believe helmets provide protection which presumably these parents do as they put their children in them.

(was writing this at same time as ratbane. spooky)

And having been to Mayhem this year I'm surprised there weren't/aren't more serious injuries at such events.

But, you pays your money.............

Mind you, if you think the debate get heated here you should try raising such a discussion on the Cyclechat forum. They're not talked of as the EDL of cycling for no reason...

I have nothing against wearing helmets but neither do I view people who make an informed decision not to wear a helmet, as foolish risk takers.

Helmets are classified as "secondary safety" or "passive safety" devices. Whilst "primary safety" or "active safety" involves eyesight hearing, balance, road craft, riding skill, brakes, tyres, wheels & frame structure, maintenance etc. The term "primary safety" infers that these issues are related to risk management and accident avoidance whilst "secondary safety" is concerned with reducing the risk of injury when the "primary safety" fails. So the greater the risk of the "primary safety" failing the grater the need for secondary injury protection.

So an inexperienced cyclist with a badly maintained bike is best advised to take some lessons and get their bike fixed before they ride at all, with or without a helmet. The big danger is when people believe that the helmet on its own, will make them a safe rider.

It used to be that the British Standard for the old hard shell helmets was to be able to protect against brain injury only sub 10mph impacts. I don't know what the current standards are but 10mph is not enough protection to be able to rely on. In certain categories of accident helmets have been shown to exacerbate injury.

So ride with due care and attention. And in order to protect you from other road users wear a helmet. But don't expect it to save you if you or they, mess up.

Off road. If you ride well within your limits and practice how to recover or jump clear if things go wrong, then a helmet is not essential. In rain a hat that keeps the rain out of your eyes may in fact be preferable.

You can find many more arguments and research both pro and against here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

PurpleFrog":5hb0z487 said:

daugs":5hb0z487 said:

it's a no brainer in my view, the pic in op says it all

Click to expand...

...The picture arguably looks like a helmet that didn't work. I see cracked foam, but not compression. If you think that is unlikely, see the source I gave above.

Everyone is entitled to their own views on helmets, but if you're going to use language that implies that only your side can be right then it might be an idea to spend a few minutes getting down at least the basic facts - the high rate of helmet failures, what helmets are supposed to do, how many people are killed each year by a cycling accident that is in the energy range where a helmet can possibly work (about zero.)

Click to expand...

I think, maybe given the emotive nature of the subject, that you maybe have missed my poor attempt at humour given this is about helmets that may or may not protect the head and the major organ inside it...................It does come down to whether the pic reflects what damage would or would not have occurred to the wearer. Unless wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous than not wearing one (in which case I am surprised an enterprising lawyer has not had a go at the helmet manufacturers) then why not wear one. But we are all entitled to our opinions and let's hope it's all just hypothetical and not really tested.

Speaking of lawyers, there is now a firmly established tradition of a reduced payout to non helmet wearers with head injuries on the basis of 'contributory negligence'.

Chopper1192":1gt75ig5 said:

Speaking of lawyers, there is now a firmly established tradition of a reduced payout to non helmet wearers with head injuries on the basis of 'contributory negligence'.

Click to expand...

Does the same 'contributory negligence' argument also apply to pedestrians?

Should pedestrians wear helmets in case of being struck by cars?

Click to expand...

At a societal level, it makes more sense than for cyclists to wear them. Passengers in cars would benefit greatly also. Not sure why people feel the need to pick on cyclists as needing to wear helmets particularly.

I'm aware of the limitations of helmets. Recognising those limitations, I personally choose to wear one (most of the time). What everyone else does is, and should remain, up to them. Essentially I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion.

Really don't get the name-calling.

Ref. "contributory negligence" -- has that ever actually stuck? I know it's been tried lots of times.

MikeD":1i8iwy37 said:

Ref. "contributory negligence" -- has that ever actually stuck? I know it's been tried lots of times.

Click to expand...

Apparently not according to a recent CTC briefing document

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... itybrf.pdf
CTC CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING. Compensation for injured cyclists Briefing (June 2013 )

Contributory negligence
"Insurers routinely try to reduce cyclists’ compensation claims by making a counter-claim of ‘contributory negligence’, i.e. they try to prove that the cyclist was at least partially to blame for his/her injuries. This does not necessarily mean that the cyclist acted illegally–‘contributory negligence’ has been raised, for example, for cycling ‘head down’ or too fast, failing to signal or adopting a doubtful road position etc."
Helmets:
"Not wearing a helmet continues to be cited against cyclists by motor insurers and their
lawyers as grounds for ‘contributory negligence’, and hence for reduced compensation payments. Although the courts have so far rejected such claims, a general principle on the issue has not been established. Indeed, a judge considering the case of an un-helmeted cyclist who sustained headinjuries in a collision with a motorcyclist (Smith v Finch, 2009) said that he thought failure to wear a helmet could in principle be regarded as ‘contributory negligence’. This was not a binding judgement, however, and the cyclist still gained full compensation because wearing a helmet would not have prevented his specific injuries. Nevertheless, CTC remains concerned about judicial attitudes towards helmet wearing. Judges tend to believe that cyclists ought to wear head protection and that not doing so is irresponsible."