But I qualified it by the final part, the common helmet wearer's contention about accidents happening at any time. It's that context which gives the statement validity, without the context it's nonsense of course.

A cycle helmet can't lower the probability of the accident occurring.

 

According to one oft quoted study, wearing a helmet increases one's chances of an accident if vehicle proximity means anything. This study showed that motorists drove much closer to helmet wearing cyclists but gave the widest berth (consideration?) to a long haired blonde (actually a man wearing a long blonde wig).

but gave the widest berth (consideration?) to a long haired blonde (actually a man wearing a long blonde wig).

 

To be fair, I'd give a wide berth to a man wearing a blonde wig.

Personally I always used to wear a helmet but after many nasty accidents I found that the cheap plastic they are made of was simply not up to the job. What is the point of wearing it if every time one lands on one's head the helmet breaks and needs replaced? Now I ride free and unfettered, no longer burdened by the cost of these ludicrous headcases.

To be fair, I'd give a wide berth to a man wearing a blonde wig.

The most notorious case of a man cycling whilst wearing a blonde wig, was the Cambridge Rapist. He was eventually caught by a Policeman knocking him off his bike when he failed to stop after being challenged. I don`t think a helmet would have helped him at that point.

The most notorious case of a man cycling whilst wearing a blonde wig, was the Cambridge Rapist. He was eventually caught by a Policeman knocking him off his bike when he failed to stop after being challenged. I don`t think a helmet would have helped him at that point.

 

The cop should have driven over his helmet. That would put an end to his activities.

What I say is that my judgment not to wear one has been historically 100% justified.

Or have you just been lucky not to have been involved in an accident where a helmet would have saved you?

 

The length of time over which that has been justified is relevant, since experience is one of the best ways of plugging the holes in your hypothetical Gruyere.

 

That's why insurance companies give no claims bonus relating to the length of period without claims, and why they prefer the older age groups to the youngsters. They know from the facts just how valuable long experience is.

 

Therefore I am also justified in saying that with each passing year of my long driving and riding experience, my likelyhood of having an accident has continuously reduced and is now at an all time low. Since that is de facto lower than the zero harmful accidents previously, my risk rating is miniscule.

 

The risk of an accident occurring where you introduce a contributory factor MAY have reduced. However, that is only part of the equation. Your risk of an accident occurring due to factors introduced by other people or other circumstances is beyond your control and may have increased.

 

All I am saying is that IF an accident happens, the out come of the accident can be tipped in your favour to some extent by wearing a helmet. Whether the amount of protection offered by a helmet justifies the inconvenience of wearing one is a personal choice and should remain just that, a personal choice.

Sorry Tillson, but incorrect on both counts.

 

First my judgment has been historically justified by the outcome, and the luck consequential to that is irrelevant to the fact. That fact is that my judgment that I would not be hurt has been sound.

 

Second, the actions of others is not entirely out of my control in a road accident context. Some patently put themselves into situations where they are more vulnerable to the mistakes of others, sometimes referred to as accident-prone. By not doing that I am exerting a control over the potential of others to harm me.

 

There is far more to this subject than meets the eye and if that was more widely accepted and acted upon, there would be fewer accidents. Being positive and applying primary safety measures instead of the fatalism of secondary safety and it's negative implications results in less accidents. It does not insure against any accidents of course, but less accidents is always a desirable target. The 66 years during which I've been cycling, motorcycling and driving without any harm befalling me and never claiming on my insurance transcends any possibility of this being due to "just being lucky". The odds in this world are never that favourable, my safety has predominantly been due to me making my own luck.

To be fair, I'd give a wide berth to a man wearing a blonde wig.

Do you regularly read threads about the pros and cons of cycle helmets?"

 

Yes, and it's boring me to tears...

Do you regularly read threads about the pros and cons of cycle helmets?"

 

Yes, and it's boring me to tears...

 

"The man who is bored with threads about the pros and cons of cycle helmets is bored with life".

 

With apologies to Samuel Johnson for misquoting.

Do you regularly read threads about the pros and cons of cycle helmets?"

 

Yes, and it's boring me to tears...

 

 

Reading threads is not compulsory........Hmm, maybe it should be?

Reading threads is not compulsory........Hmm, maybe it should be?

I do actually feel this strange compulsion. It's like banging your head on the wall; so nice when it stops.

I do actually feel this strange compulsion. It's like banging your head on the wall; so nice when it stops.

 

You see, Roger,thats why I tried to distract you all with Boris and Mrs T ( sshhhhh).....I was only trying to help

 

Boris or Helmets ? .....or Daddy or Chips ??... as the ad goes...

 

I also find banging your head on the wall is a good remedy for toothache coupled with keeping whisky held in your mouth over the tooth until ulceration !!!! ( Yes.....Im afraid I did once )

 

Maybe whisky combined with the head banging could be more of a help when you feel overcome with a strange compulsion again lol

 

Lynda

I do actually feel this strange compulsion. It's like banging your head on the wall; so nice when it stops.

 

Roger,

 

May I suggest that in the interests of health and safety that you were a helmet when banging your head on walls and that the walls are not load bearing!

 

All I am saying is that IF an accident happens, the out come of the accident can be tipped in your favour to some extent by wearing a helmet......

 

Citation or reference please?

In my southern area the lycras wear them, part of the image with the wrap around goggles of course, and quite a proportion of commuters wear them.

 

I think wrap around glasses are great! My normal sunglasses are dreadfrul when getting sideways sunshine through intermittent trees!!

I bought some cheap safety glasses from Amazon and they have done the job perfectly.

You don't have to pay a fortune for high status brand name style glasses!!

 

Barry,

Well I always wear a helmet whether commuting to work (mostly) or recreationally cycling perhaps with my 10 year old daughter.

It offers protection from the elements as I have noted before - rain, cold, sunburn - also if I happen to fall off and bang my head it is always going to help.

While I appreciate flecc's comments about making your own luck and responding to other's actions the situation where you are wiped out by something completely out of your control always exists.

If wearing a helmet helps me to survive such an incident then I will be glad to wear a helmet so my 10 year old daughter hopefully does not have to suffer the loss of her Father at a young age.

At the same time I think it is important for people (adults) to decide fror themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not, I always insist my daughter wears a helmet!

 

Barry.

Citation or reference please?

 

There probably isn't one. It's a bit like asking for a citation or reference saying that's it dangerous / painful to marinate your penis in in tobasco sauce and to then put it into bacon slicer. It's just one of those things that you don't do. You don't need a citation or a reference.

 

For me personally, logic suggests that if you have a lump of polystyrene strapped to your head and you receive a blow which lands on the polystyrene bit, it Can tip the balance of probability of not sustaining injury in your favour. It has to be better than an impact directly onto bone.

Edited August 11, 201213 yr by tillson

It's a bit like asking for a citation or reference saying that's it dangerous / painful to marinate your penis in in tobasco sauce and to then put it into bacon slicer. It's just one of those things that you don't do. You don't need a citation or a reference.

 

Health and safety warning!

Don't try this at home guys.............or anywhere else for that matter:eek:

For me personally, logic suggests that if you have a lump of polystyrene strapped to your head and you receive a blow which lands on the polystyrene bit, it Can tip the balance of probability of not sustaining injury in your favour.

 

Completely agree and I go further, it probably will tip the balance, though I prefer to do without both the polystyrene and the impact.

 

It has to be better than an impact directly onto bone.

 

Mostly has to be better. Not if it means severe brain damage and a cabbage like existence instead of death. Life ain't that great.

There probably isn't one. It's a bit like asking for a citation or reference saying that's it dangerous / painful to marinate your penis in in tobasco sauce and to then put it into bacon slicer. It's just one of those things that you don't do. You don't need a citation or a reference.

 

For me personally, logic suggests that if you have a lump of polystyrene strapped to your head and you receive a blow which lands on the polystyrene bit, it Can tip the balance of probability of not sustaining injury in your favour. It has to be better than an impact directly onto bone.

 

You're just being facetious, theres no 'probably' about it...interesting to note the Olympic track cyclist helmets use a collapsible aircraft alloy honey comb to absorb some of the impact in the case of an accident.

Completely agree and I go further, it probably will tip the balance, though I prefer to do without both the polystyrene and the impact.

 

 

 

Mostly has to be better. Not if it means severe brain damage and a cabbage like existence instead of death. Life ain't that great.

 

Indeed Flecc, it's may protect the bone but what about the vulnerable bit inside the skull...

interesting to note the Olympic track cyclist helmets use a collapsible aircraft alloy honey comb to absorb some of the impact in the case of an accident.

 

Yes, I understand that part of the objective is to reduce the acceleration force on the brain. A structure intended to collapse when loaded in the intended way can do this.

 

Polystyrene used in cycle helmets has a degree of compressibility and the structure of the helmet can collapse, all of which absorb energy and reduce the acceleration on the brain. Under these circumstances, I believe that it is reasonable to suggest that a cycle helmet Can tip the balance in the wearer's favour.

 

Citations / references: Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion.

I mentioned the track cycling helmets to highlight the inadequate protection current polystyrene helmets offer.

 

I'm not going to post on this thread again and will end with a recommendation to everyone to read and digest the article below from Cycle Helmets .org...if you don't get it at first, read it again and again...

 

Cycle helmets - an overview