Cycle helmet wearers are reckless

Yep, I'm feeling mischievous!

I've just seen yet another poster claiming he wouldn't be posting if he hadn't been wearing a helmet when he had a crash. Apart from the fact that the many who regularly say such things cannot possibly know that, one wonders about all the non-wearers who survive to post.

As someone who rode motorcycles intensively and almost daily over high mileages without helmets for 22 years, and has ridden bicycles for 63 years, unpowered, petrol powered and electric powered, I have yet to have even parted my hair on a road surface.

I therefore conclude that those who wear helmets and post their lurid survival accounts are reckless since they have so many serious accidents.

.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by flecc

I can't see the point in not wearing one to be honest. At the end of the day it's hardly a chore and it may stop you living the rest of your life with brain damage and being a burden to your family. Not something I plan on doing if I can help it especially for the sake of a £20 helmet.

I took quite a laid back attitude to wearing my helmet when I was younger until my front wheel gave way on, of all things, moss. My head bounced of a paving slab faster than I thought possible. I was lucky it only stunned me and gave me a big headache. I've never not worn my helmet since. I have to admit, it did scare me slightly (more than I admitted at the time ).

I wonder if it's an age thing. Cycle helmets were starting to be worn more and more when I was growing up so it's more or less the norm for me, but I guess those older than me are more likely to have grown up without them, so what's normal to me may be odd for those older than me. Maybe it's just what we're used to more than anything else?

Is it like the seat belt issue? I can't drive without wearing one even in the back seat. Not out of a sense of duty or fear, simply because it's habit. I feel something's missing or not quite right if I haven't got it on! I've noticed this isn't the case with my parents though and I sometimes have to remind my Mum if she forgets.

Out of interest, for those that don't want to wear a helmet. Why? Is it because you don't want someone telling you what to do? A comfort issue? A belief that it is pointless? A combination? Just curious.

BY flecc Yep, I'm feeling mischievous

yes you certainly are:D i reckon you will stir up a hornets nest flecc. I remember driving to london with my mates sometime in 70s it was a motorcycle demo against wearing the crash helmet it seemed a good ideal:confused: but still it was a good day out thousands of bikers everywhere.nigel.

I agree up to a certain point - as a motorcyclist too (but only during the enforced helmet law era!) I understand the theory that the more protected you feel the more reckless you become:

On the times I used to pop to the shops on my motorcycle in the summer wearing just shorts, t-shirt, trainers and a bike helmet I felt so unprotected that I rode like a granny - there was no way I was going to let myself crash with just that on.

On the times when I fully kitted up in one piece leathers, boots, gloves and helmet I'd ride like a nutter (well, for me) from the second I got on the bike.

I can also compare how I feel on a motorbike or bicycle to how I feel when in a car - I'll take many more risks whilst driving.

Why I said I only agree up to a certain point is that no matter how careful you are and how observant you try to be there is always that slim chance you'll come across an idiot who decides that they'll do something very silly and crash into you. In a car you might get away without even a scratch yet on a bike you are in big trouble, more so if you aren't wearing as much protective gear as possible. For this reason alone I'll never now not wear a helmet on a bicycle or crash protection when on a motorcycle.

My 2 pence worth

Flecc,

I guess you have been lucky enough never to have had an accident in all that time, and have also managed to avoid the other reckless idiot on the road? If so, that is nothing short of miraculous:rolleyes:

I take it you never wear any personal protective equipment for any potentially risky activity:D

One positive aspect of wearing a helmet is the extra stature if gives to the vertically challenged:p

Retribution to follow shortly I expect?

J;) hn

 

Out of interest, for those that don't want to wear a helmet. Why? Is it because you don't want someone telling you what to do? A comfort issue? A belief that it is pointless? A combination? Just curious.

For me it's a comfort issue Caph, I don't like headwear. The issue of being told what to do doesn't come into it, though I can resent that in some other circumstances. But this is a red herring.

I am making a serious point about people having accidents, which you have avoided. Why do so many helmet wearers, you included, have these accident accounts? I don't think they are taking enough care, the care that prevents nearly all the non-helmet wearers from hurting themselves.

Cyclist death rates are quite low, and a high proportion of those killed are helmet wearers anyway, so large numbers of non helmet wearers just aren't having accidents of any seriousness. The only possible reason for that is they are taking more care.

The government's own Road Research Laboratory has made the point that seat belt wearing prompted involuntary higher risk taking on the evidence they collected, so it may be that helmet wearing equally promotes a feeling of safety, leading to involuntary greater risk taking.

I know how vulnerable my cranium is, so I take care not to put it into circumstances where it could be damaged. That patently is not true of the many helmet wearers who have these accidents.

.

OK...

I think cycle helmet wearers are deeply religious people who have faith that, in the absence of any credible evidence, a polystyrene box will protect them from injury.

Being a tolerant sort of person, I don't object to them, but find it mildly irritating when they imply that their faith gives them protection from cycling accidents, and very irritating when they suggest I ought to join their cult!

Frank

Flecc,

I guess you have been lucky enough never to have had an accident in all that time, and have also managed to avoid the other reckless idiot on the road? If so, that is nothing short of miraculous:rolleyes:

I take it you never wear any personal protective equipment for any potentially risky activity:D

Luck holding for 63 years is impossible John. A clue might be my always having full no claims bonus on my cars and motorcycles, and even extra preferred policyholder discount when that was available. Clearly I know how to take care of my safety, and miracles don't come into it. There honestly isn't a single mark on me from a road accident, nor has there ever been.

Personal protective equipment I use for certain activities like welding and some grinding since with those I cannot be in control of all parts of the materials I'm working with.

However, I notice that you too have avoided the point I was making about helmet wearers and their accidents. It's a serious point.

.

I agree up to a certain point - as a motorcyclist too (but only during the enforced helmet law era!) I understand the theory that the more protected you feel the more reckless you become:

 

On the times I used to pop to the shops on my motorcycle in the summer wearing just shorts, t-shirt, trainers and a bike helmet I felt so unprotected that I rode like a granny - there was no way I was going to let myself crash with just that on.

 

On the times when I fully kitted up in one piece leathers, boots, gloves and helmet I'd ride like a nutter (well, for me) from the second I got on the bike.

 

My 2 pence worth

Your two pence worth Dazzie, but common sense beyond value.

It's precisely the point I'm making, that the secondary safety promoters with their seat belts and helmets are a greater danger to themselves and other road users though not practicing primary safety, i.e. not having the accident in the first place.

.

OK...

 

I think cycle helmet wearers are deeply religious people who have faith that, in the absence of any credible evidence, a polystyrene box will protect them from injury.

 

Being a tolerant sort of person, I don't object to them, but find it mildly irritating when they imply that their faith gives them protection from cycling accidents, and very irritating when they suggest I ought to join their cult!

 

Frank

Well said Frank, but I think as I've said above that there is in addition the issue of the secondary safety promoters endangering others and costing the community, so there's a serious practical dimension as well as the faith one.

.

 

i reckon you will stir up a hornets nest flecc.

I like hornets Nigel, fearless creatures that will stand up for their rights and protect their interests.

.

Luck holding for 63 years is impossible John.

.

We still have the right to smoke tobacco. Many people who smoke get to live to a ripe old age but this doesn't mean it's safe. You cannot deny the overwhelming evidence that smoking is dangerous to your health and many people who smoke get to die an unpleasant death.

Luck is luck, and 63 years of luck is luckier than most but not impossible so congratulations to you. But your luck will run out some time, by law of averages.

You may be the most skilled cyclist the world has known, but you can't allow for the drunk driver, the patch of black ice or the teenage idiot etc. It may only be a bit of polystyrene, but it increases my chances of surviving a crash slightly. I don't wish to make you wear a helmet, and I hope you won't try and deny me the right to wear mine. Each to his own.

Just a (mischievous) thought - if you aren't physically able to ride over 15mph then you are probably a lot safer than the sweaty brigade

I am making a serious point about people having accidents, which you have avoided. Why do so many helmet wearers, you included, have these accident accounts? I don't think they are taking enough care, the care that prevents nearly all the non-helmet wearers from hurting themselves.

 

Cyclist death rates are quite low, and a high proportion of those killed are helmet wearers anyway, so large numbers of non helmet wearers just aren't having accidents of any seriousness. The only possible reason for that is they are taking more care.

 

.

OK, Tony, if that's the point you want addressed, let's do it on a proper statistical basis....

You make a claim and then propose an explanation. First of all you haven't established the claim - you haven't actually shown that non helmet wearers are having more or worse accidents. You have produced an anecdote that suggests that may be the case, but you haven't demonstrated it.

But let's move on. We need to decide what basis the statistics are on, eg., per rider, per journey, per mile. Suppose then that they do turn out to show that one group has a worse accident record than the other, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is cause and effect in one particular direction, or even that there is a correlation.

One classic problem in interpreting data is that there is some third factor, to which both effects are strongly correlated, and that is showing up as a weak correlation between the first two factors. To take a (probably untrue) example: helmets are a fashion statement for a certain age group; the same age group likes to ride wheelies along railway lines. The Daily Mail headline - scientists show that red helmets cause more brain injuries than green ones.

Another classic problem is that the methodology of the experiment is flawed. Here's another (and better) example. I sometimes wear one and sometimes I don't; I base the decision on the estimated risk of having an accident during the journey. Suppose Somerset is full of such rational people. Statistics will show that most riders having accidents are wearing helmets. Daily Mail headline: West Country yokels stupid; helmets cause accidents, when actually its the other way round. The accidents "cause" the helmets, and we're being smart.

My point is that there are correct and incorrect ways of working with statistics. If there is a positive correlation between helmets and accidents then that is an awful lot better than a negative correlation. (A negative correlation would mean lots of people having accidents while not wearing helmets.)

You raise a valid observation and I'm only objecting to your (mischievous?) conclusion. If there is a positive correlation between helmets and accidents then it doesn't mean that helmet wearing causes accidents, or that helmet wearers are more reckless. I've given one scenario where the correlation comes about simply because the riders are being sensible.

Nick

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by Tiberius

Tiberius makes an excellent point. Where's the evidence. Where are the statistics? Not that I'm disputing what you're saying Flecc, but you can't say something like that without the evidence to back you up.

Having said that, I can see exactly where you are coming from. Extra safety apparatus can lead to over reliance and risk taking. Just as familiarity with the local terrain can lead to accidents because people are less observant when in familiar or local surroundings.

Personally I wear a lid now. My missus insisted on it.

But for 20 odd years I didn't bother. I do travel twice the distance I used to so I suppose that increases my risk of an accident, but I never ever feel invincible just cos I'm wearing a lid.

If anything I wear my vulnerability like a shield. I was only saying to a mate this evening that I'm sure some passers by think I've Tourette's Syndrome

We still have the right to smoke tobacco. Many people who smoke get to live to a ripe old age but this doesn't mean it's safe. You cannot deny the overwhelming evidence that smoking is dangerous to your health and many people who smoke get to die an unpleasant death.

 

Luck is luck, and 63 years of luck is luckier than most but not impossible so congratulations to you. But your luck will run out some time, by law of averages.

Smoking isn't relevant to this issue, and I absolutely don't accept that luck is responsible for my history. In this world we largely make our own luck, something many are not very good at.

 

I don't wish to make you wear a helmet, and I hope you won't try and deny me the right to wear mine. Each to his own.

Of course not, and I would defend your right to helmet wearing. Sadly those who wear helmets simply cannot resist pushing their views at every opportunity, that happening again and prompting this thread. I find that irritating, and when they buttonhole me in the street with their attempted lecture I find it objectionable in the extreme.

 

Just a (mischievous) thought - if you aren't physically able to ride over 15mph then you are probably a lot safer than the sweaty brigade

. I am capable of much more, sweating too, and I'm also on record in here for downhill speeds of well over 40 mph. I don't pussyfoot around and like speed since speed isn't necessarily a cause of accidents. Most often it's people who cause them.

.

Tiberius makes an excellent point. Where's the evidence. Where are the statistics? Not that I'm disputing what you're saying Flecc, but you can't say something like that without the evidence to back you up.

Here you go!

And for a quick snapshot:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/index_11.jpg

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by frank9755

OK, Tony, if that's the point you want addressed, let's do it on a proper statistical basis....

 

You make a claim and then propose an explanation. First of all you haven't established the claim - you haven't actually shown that non helmet wearers are having more or worse accidents.

You've read beyond what I posted Nick, which was:

"I therefore conclude that those who wear helmets and post their lurid survival accounts are reckless since they have so many serious accidents."

Note the carefully constructed detail. I didn't say all helmet wearers, only those posting their survival accounts. I haven't quantified any accidents, only said "so many", which could be any quantity.

Since almost every helmet wearer promoting their use has an account of how a helmet has saved them from death or serious injury, enough evidence of that fact being in this forum, my conclusion is within the realms of reasonability, since the many non-helmet wearers posting clearly haven't been killed or seriously brain damaged.

The overall number of cyclists killed is so low compared to cyclists on the roads that they cannot contain a proportion of non-helmet wearers equal to the number of helmet wearers giving those serious accident accounts.

Ergo, the non helmet wearers are almost certainly much better at avoiding the accidents threatening death, and by implication serious head injury, if those helmet wearing promoters are telling the truth about their accidents.

.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by flecc

Tiberius makes an excellent point. Where's the evidence. Where are the statistics? Not that I'm disputing what you're saying Flecc, but you can't say something like that without the evidence to back you up.

Yes I can.

As I've shown above in my reply to Nick.

.

Here you go!

 

And for a quick snapshot:

Thanks Frank, though as you'll see from my answer to Nick, I was able to make the claim I made anyway.

.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by flecc

Very good!

This is the article I was looking for, which supports my view that helmets not only make riders more likely to have accidents, but that they are far more likely to bang their heads when they do so.

I am making a serious point about people having accidents, which you have avoided. Why do so many helmet wearers, you included, have these accident accounts? .

With regards that particular point, no I don't think wearing a helmet makes you more reckless. Remember, I said it was the accident I had when I wasn't wearing a helmet that got me wearing one all the time.

The only other accident I had was recently on black ice on an adverse camber on a downhill slope. It would have got me helmet or not. I didn't actually hit my head that time so the helmet wasn't needed. Hopefully my snow studs will put pay to those types of accident in future.

In fact I've never hit my head once since I started wearing a helmet religiously which makes me all the more certain that the first time I go out without it I'll come a cropper. It's the old lottery ticket syndrome!

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by Caph

Very good!

 

This is the article I was looking for, which supports my view that helmets not only make riders more likely to have accidents, but that they are far more likely to bang their heads when they do so.

Yes, the weight of evidence just from your links is quite conclusive Frank, and when added to the many other informed sources, its difficult to see how the helmet benefit argument can be sustained.

As I've replied above, I'm happy for those who feel safer wearing them, but just wish they would accept the logical, statistical and scientific validity of others not wearing them and stop the irritating promotion.

.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by flecc

Hi flecc,

This is what we scientists refer to as "wriggling". I took your main point and demolished it.

Your essential claim was that if these things we were hearing were true, then a certain section of the population must be behaving irrationally. I showed that the outcome could be the result of rational decisions about when to wear a helmet.

As for the other point about individuals claiming helmets saved their lives, therefore we must all wear helmets, I agree. This is no more logical than some of the arguments that we should not wear them.

Nick

Apologies if I seem in an argumentative mood today - I'm stuck indoors with flu.

 

With regards that particular point, no I don't think wearing a helmet makes you more reckless.

I haven't said because helmets were worn that caused the recklessness. On that I said this, saying "it may be":

"it may be that helmet wearing equally promotes a feeling of safety, leading to involuntary greater risk taking"

My opening point was that the accidents the helmet wearing promoters usually report were due to recklessness.

.

I think cycle helmet wearers are deeply religious people who have faith that, in the absence of any credible evidence, a polystyrene box will protect them from injury.

If your head bangs hard off the ground, especially the curb, there's a good chance you'll do serious damage to yourself (possibly, God forbid, brain damage). If you're wearing a helmet there's a good chance you won't. I believe that's the main point of wearing a helmet, at least it's the main point why I do. It's not rocket science, just common sense.

Just get someone to stand behind you and give you a sharp tap with a heavy piece of concrete both with and without a helmet. You'll quickly learn the benefit then. In fact why don't we have a competition, I'll wear a helmet and you don't, then we'll see who can take the heaviest hit with the slab of concrete. I'd bet my house I'd win on account of you being ruled out due to being unconscious.

The point I'm making is that of course the helmet will absorb impact, and of course this is a good thing. To say that it will help you in a full on collision with a lorry is obviously pointless. It will help you up to a point, but it will help you. To say otherwise is plain silly.