Compulsory helmets again!

Just zis Guy said:

You told him his PFDB would not protect his brain owing to being three feet above it, then? ;-P

<G>

I refrained, with difficulty, from commenting. Suggesting to the Merkins on rsu that a helmet may
not save your life every time you ride is even more futile than trying to explain to a born again
Christian that God may not actually exist ;-)

--
Danny Colyer (catch the cow to reply) juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

Ian said:

I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at the
whole picture.

There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in which anyone
suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't believe you can.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ Das Internet is nicht fuer
gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken
sichtseeren keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das
cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Ian said:

So you are saying that bicycle helmets have no benefit whatsoever and are designed as such, ergo,
to simplify it, if the helmet will absorb a 10mph impact, it it not basically true to say that it
would reduce the effects of a 20mph impact to those of a 10mph impact.

No, absolutely not. Impact force follows a square rule so the force of a 20mph impact is not twice a
10mph impact, it's four times. Thus the force of a 20mph impact minus the force of a 10mph impact is
the force of an 18.3mph impact[1].

Quoted message said:

you are saying that if the design limits are exceeded then the benefits cease rather than
are reduced

No, they don't cease, but they are not very significant. As I posted earlier the design limits of a
bicycle helmet are equivalent to falling 71cm. Obviously, it's equivalent to falling 71cm without
being able to put a hand out to break your fall, but I think you'll agree you would not expect many
people to be much injured in a fall of 71cm.

In other words cycling helmets are designed to protect you against forces which are not really great
enough to cause significant injury in the first place. If the force exceeds this design limit then
of course the helmet must ameliorate the impact - but not very much, because the protection offered
by the helmet is not very much in the first place.

[1] I'm not absolutely confident of my maths here. I used 20 - ( ( sqrt( 20) - sqrt( 10))^2)) = 20 -
1.7 = 18.3

However even if I'm wrong the force of a 20mph impact minus the force of a 10mph impact must
exceed the force of a 15mph impact.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ Das Internet is nicht fuer
gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken
sichtseeren keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das
cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Simon Brooke said:

Ian said:

I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at the
whole picture.

There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in which anyone
suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't believe you can.

But there are many that argue against even campaigns encouraging helmet wear for fear of setting up
a "cycling is dangerous" perception.

The line of argument I find difficult runs something like: "I wear a helmet sometimes, even often,
because I feel it gives me a benefit when I wear it. But I don't want the benefits of helmet wear to
be publicised to others less knowledgeable than I lest they or others be discouraged from cycling"

pk

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

[1] I'm not absolutely confident of my maths here. I used 20 - ( ( sqrt( 20) - sqrt( 10))^2)) = 20
- 1.7 = 18.3

Quoted message said:

However even if I'm wrong the force of a 20mph impact minus the force of a 10mph impact must
exceed the force of a 15mph impact.

20*20 = 400 10*10 = 100

400 - 100 = 300 Square root of 300 is 17.32

The way I see it is you are basically right but arithmetic needed adjustment.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at
the whole picture.

There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in which
anyone suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't believe
you can.

But there are many that argue against even campaigns encouraging helmet

wear

Quoted message said:

for fear of setting up a "cycling is dangerous" perception.

The line of argument I find difficult runs something like: "I wear a

helmet

Quoted message said:

sometimes, even often, because I feel it gives me a benefit when I wear

it.

Quoted message said:

But I don't want the benefits of helmet wear to be publicised to others

less

Quoted message said:

knowledgeable than I lest they or others be discouraged from cycling"

I think if we stick "exaggerated" before "benefits" we get a slightly sounder argument.

/whinge/ It seems most people are against the publicising of dubious or optimistic claims about the
effectiveness of cycle helmets, as this would make compulsion more likely. As no one seems to have
come up with compelling evidence that shows a statistically significant benefit to populations
wearing helmets, it does seem logical to be against compulsion. In my (humble) view, central
government should not be concerned with preventing minor scrapes and bruises and concussion. That's
the job of personal responsibility. Those who don't want the bother of getting concussion, scrapes,
bruises and maybe the inconvenience of a trip to the A+E just to make sure, choose to wear a helmet.
Those with a misplaced sense of confidence, a relaxed view about pain or who merely relish looking
like they've lost a fight, don't!

After reading through everyones posts I suspect that the public view of what helmets do and the
message given by the marketing (save your life) is optimistic. The reality of what they actually do,
does make them well worthwhile wearing but the expectation given by the marketing is inflated.
Either that or there are a lot of flawed studies being thrown around in this ng!

What we need is either helmets that perform as well as the compulsion people think they do, then
they /may/ have a case for compulsion. But, given the number of deaths the case for prosecuting
people for riding a push bike with a bare head isn't particularly compelling.

/whinge off/

Mark Thompson said:

What we need is either helmets that perform as well as the compulsion people think they do, then
they /may/ have a case for compulsion. But, given the number of deaths the case for prosecuting
people for riding a push bike with a bare head isn't particularly compelling.

The real problem is the simple financial one that enough research has been done to make quite clear
that if the helemt manufacturers actually made a helmet which *was* as good their claims then nobody
would buy it because it would be too big and heavy. What they actually sell is something that is as
big and heavy as the market will put up with. The problem is that the level of protection it offers
covers the same range of impact as evolution, reflexes, etc., already cover very well, i.e., the
approach of something hard towards the head at running speeds.

What is needed to cut serious head injuries and deaths is a helmet which protects against concussive
damage at impact speeds higher than that, e.g. collisions with a hard object at a relative speed
exceeding 20mph. But that is exactly where the current crop of helmets *stop* protecting you. No
wonder statistical tests have to be severely rigged to show any benefit. If current helmets just
protected up to 25mph they'd show benefits quite easily. But they don't, and the history of the
research shows quite clearly why: it's all been concerned with finding ways to justify more
marketable helmets, i.e., smaller lighter ones. We're being sold "magic" helmets because not enough
of us would buy helmets which worked.

No problem with that, it's simple basic market place economics and human choice. Then along come
politicians who buy the advertising spiel and want to *force* us to wear magic helmets. The problem
is how to stop the juggernaut that's created when a profitable industry with lots of profit-led
"scientific" studies selling its products starts making a profitable alliance with politicians who
can pass regulations which would increase profits even more, and who can't tell the difference
between science and advertising disguised as science.

It's the same kind of thing as happens in the drug industry.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Thompson
> >> I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the whole picture.

There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in which
anyone suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't believe
you can.

But there are many that argue against even campaigns encouraging helmet

wear

Quoted message said:

for fear of setting up a "cycling is dangerous" perception.

The line of argument I find difficult runs something like: "I wear a

helmet

Quoted message said:

sometimes, even often, because I feel it gives me a benefit when I wear

it.

Quoted message said:

But I don't want the benefits of helmet wear to be publicised to others

less

Quoted message said:

knowledgeable than I lest they or others be discouraged from cycling"

I think if we stick "exaggerated" before "benefits" we get a slightly sounder argument.

/whinge/ It seems most people are against the publicising of dubious or optimistic claims about the
effectiveness of cycle helmets, as this would make compulsion more likely. As no one seems to have
come up with compelling evidence that shows a statistically significant benefit to populations
wearing helmets, it does seem logical to be against compulsion. In my (humble) view, central
government should not be concerned with preventing minor scrapes and bruises and concussion. That's
the job of personal responsibility. Those who don't want the bother of getting concussion, scrapes,
bruises and maybe the inconvenience of a trip to the A+E just to make sure, choose to wear a helmet.
Those with a misplaced sense of confidence, a relaxed view about pain or who merely relish looking
like they've lost a fight, don't!

After reading through everyones posts I suspect that the public view of what helmets do and the
message given by the marketing (save your life) is optimistic. The reality of what they actually do,
does make them well worthwhile wearing but the expectation given by the marketing is inflated.
Either that or there are a lot of flawed studies being thrown around in this ng!

What we need is either helmets that perform as well as the compulsion people think they do, then
they /may/ have a case for compulsion. But, given the number of deaths the case for prosecuting
people for riding a push bike with a bare head isn't particularly compelling.

/whinge off/

Hello,

I know I might sound like a boring killjoy but I can't believe that people would ride without a helmet. There is stacks of evidence that helmets significantly reduce the risk of injury and death in cycling accidents and that legislation increases use of helmets. A meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy studies found statistically significant protective effect of helmets (Accident Analysis & Prevention. 33(3):345-52, 2001). A case controlled study in the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries also ( JAMA. 276(24):1968-73, 1996 Dec 25) found that "Bicycle helmets, regardless of type, provide substantial protection against head injuries for cyclists of all ages involved in crashes, including crashes involving motor vehicles." (these are just 2 of 100's of studies)

Helmets are not that bad to wear anyway

Danny Colyer said:

Just zis Guy said:

.... the leading study quoted by helmet advocates also manages to show that helmets reduce leg
and torso injuries?

Quoted message said:

Actually I now have a mechanism for this, of sorts.

Quoted message said:

A few months ago someone posted to rec.sport.unicycling (unfortunately I am now unable to find the
post) describing a fall that he had while mountain biking. He commented that he was glad he'd been
wearing a helmet, because otherwise he would have made an effort not to hit his head. He felt that
by not making any effort to avoid hitting his head, he was able to make an effort instead to avoid
damage to his arms and legs.

Quoted message said:

I found it rather worrying that anyone would put so much faith in a PFDB that he would make no
effort to avoid hitting his head in the event of a tumble. Come to think of it, that could also be
a valid mechanism for helmets to increase head injuries among the stupid...

I think wearing tough leather gloves reduces my chances of a head injury because it reduces my fear
of gravel rash etc. if I throw my hands out in front of my head. This feeling of vulnerable hands
affects my traffic behaviour too. I notice on hot days when I don't wear gloves on a motorcycle that
I unconsciously curb my speed because my hands feel more vulnerable.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Caitie said:

Hello,

I know I might sound like a boring killjoy but I can't believe that people would ride without
a helmet.

Yawn. Go troll somewhere else

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Caitie said:

Hello,

I know I might sound like a boring killjoy but I can't believe that people would ride without a
helmet.

Yawn. Go troll somewhere else

Tony

I'm slowly getting tired of postings that arrive through cyclingforums.com

Whilst some of them are sesnsible, many are not. Genuine URCers seem to (on the whole) give more
thought to what they post.

Unfortunately, I do not wish to send all cyclingforum posts to the killfile because, as I say, some
of them are well thought out.

Just a thought.

Love and port 119 from Rich x

--
Sig got lost during a reinstall

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Call it a foible. I can't allow advocacy of compulsory helmets pass unchallenged, because the
only research that has ever suggested

significant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

benefit from wearing a helmet has been from people who have already made

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their minds that they want helmets to be compulsory, and no country

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has tried it has actually reduced injury rates. Cycling rates, yes,

helmet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

laws cut cycling rates pretty dramatically, but injury rates remain the same. Until we know why
I am unwilling for me or my children to be lab

rats

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the same failed experiment.

So all the development that helmet manufacturers put into helmets is not worth a light? Can you
tell me what the vast majority of cycle injuries

are?

Quoted message said:

We are not talking about the blanket of all injuries here afterall, just head injuries, you
trotting out non specifics and swallowing wholesale non specifics from elsewhere is showing you to
have "ostrich" syndrome.

Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

Povey L J, Frith W J, Graham P G. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1999; volume 31, pp 763-770

Note no mention of broken legs or broken arms here, it is specific, something you have failed to
be on a consistent basis.

Australia.

"In Australia, recent mass data indicates that 25 per cent of bicyclists admitted to hospital, and
44 per cent of those killed, had head injury as their single most important injury. These figures
do not include multiple injuries, among many of which are unrecorded head injuries. Head injury is

a

Quoted message said:

cause of death in 80 per cent of cyclists' deaths and 33 per cent of reported injuries in
Victoria, and several other studies have shown that, depending how the statistics are collected
and analysed, bicycle crashes result in serious head injuries in one-quarter to two-thirds of
bicyclists admitted to hospital, and up to 80 per cent if the collisions involved a motor vehicle.
Up to 80 per cent of deaths among bicyclists are due to severe head injury."

Of course this isn't worth anything to you because you would rather we

have

Quoted message said:

a head injury and a broken leg rather than just the leg, so you can say

that

Quoted message said:

we need to educate car drivers, a few more brain damaged kids will help further your cause
afterall.

From the same report.

"Bicycle crashes occur mainly during times of heavy traffic, and during daylight. Three-quarters
of crash victims are male, with a high proportion being teenagers on school trips and young adults
on work trips. Most collisions between bicycles and cars occur at intersections or where cyclists
or drivers enter a roadway. The commonest injuries are to the limbs"

Well well, look at this, the commonest injuries are those to limbs,

helmets

Quoted message said:

do not help limbs, so helmets are no good.

Best to overlook.

"Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those
without."

Attributed to The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets: a review Henderson, Michael.

Of course non of this research exists according to you.

How about this non scientific test.

sph.emory.eduboardman.htmlOpen ↗

From a British study.

"However, the great majority of the fatalities and approximately half the injuries - most of them
to adults - result from damage to the head

following

Quoted message said:

collision with a car or goods vehicle." The cycle helmet: friend or foe? Hillman, Meyer.

There's that term "head injuries" again, not your blanket term "injuries", also note the frequency
throughout of the link between head injuries and death, no sign of anyone dying from a broken
finger, which is of course

one

Quoted message said:

of the statistics you use to discourage helmet use.

How much research do you want?

Personally, I tend to believe the research which is long-term, whole population, done by unbiased
statisticians, not that done by medical researchers who have already assumed that cycle helmets must
be a "good thing" and go about their research so as to prove that assumption.

Quoted message said:

A study from Toronto concluded.

"In analyzing the type of injuries resulting in deaths, it was noted that

21

Quoted message said:

of the 38 victims (55 per cent) died as a result of head injuries."

So come on, lose the blanket you hide behind and talk "head injuries".

Just explain one thing: if all this research you quote is true, why has there been no effect on KSIs
to cyclists in the real world? except to reduce the numbers of cyclists and therefore degrade the
health of the population generally. And the latest report from USA shows an increase in KSIs with a
rise in helmet-wearing.

Quoted message said:

Of course I'm sure no studies are valid unless you do them yourself with your huge knowledge of
such matters[SARCASM]

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to open some eyes,

None so blind as will not see. This is a political issue, not a road safey one. The politicians want
to be seen to be doing something about the safety of cyclists, but must not been seen to be
attacking the source of the problem, drivers. It is a medical tenet that you treat the cause of the
disease, not the symptoms: cycle helmets do exactly the reverse, and have an overall negative effect
on population health.

Why do you think that BHIT have to lie in order to get MPs, admittedly unaware of the facts, to
sign an EDM?

and I still

Quoted message said:

advocate choice on wearing helmets in adults.

How about choice in pedestrians or car passengers wearing them, where it would have much more effect
that cycle helmets?

Quoted message said:

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Simon Brooke scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Ian said:

I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at the
whole picture.

There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in which anyone
suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't believe you can.

Actually Guy has been intoning that wearing helmets takes away responsibility from drivers to allow
for cyclists amongst other things. The CTC are so negative as to be anti as well.

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

PK said:

Simon Brooke said:

Ian said:

I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at
the whole picture.

There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in which
anyone suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't believe
you can.

But there are many that argue against even campaigns encouraging helmet wear for fear of setting
up a "cycling is dangerous" perception.

The line of argument I find difficult runs something like: "I wear a helmet sometimes, even often,
because I feel it gives me a benefit when I wear it. But I don't want the benefits of helmet wear
to be publicised to others less knowledgeable than I lest they or others be discouraged from
cycling"

I wear a helmet occasionally when I'm doing things I know are silly and are likely to cause me to
fall off - like trying a tricky new off-road downhill section. I do it to protect me from minor cuts
and bruises. This seems rational.

On the other hand, the evidence we have suggests that wearing a helmet on the road is probably
_more_ (not less) dangerous than not wearing a helmet on the road. For myself, I am not
sufficiently convinced about the strengh of that evidence, so I wouldn't try to persuade anyone
else not to (although I don't myself). But I think it would be wildly irresponsible to advise
people _to_ wear one.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ Das Internet is nicht fuer
gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken
sichtseeren keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das
cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Simon Brooke scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

[1] I'm not absolutely confident of my maths here. I used 20 - ( ( sqrt( 20) - sqrt( 10))^2)) = 20
- 1.7 = 18.3

However even if I'm wrong the force of a 20mph impact minus the force of a 10mph impact must
exceed the force of a 15mph impact.

I did say I was SIMPLIFYING it in example, wha's wrong with you Simon? Trying for high
blood pressure?

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

[1] I'm not absolutely confident of my maths here. I used 20 - ( ( sqrt( 20) - sqrt( 10))^2)) =
20 - 1.7 = 18.3

Quoted message said:

However even if I'm wrong the force of a 20mph impact minus the force of a 10mph impact must
exceed the force of a 15mph impact.

20*20 = 400 10*10 = 100

400 - 100 = 300 Square root of 300 is 17.32

The way I see it is you are basically right but arithmetic needed adjustment.

Thank you, I have been worrying about that all night. I knew instinctively that the aswer had to be
about 17, because of the shape of the curve... 18.3 looked too high.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ Das Internet is nicht fuer
gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken
sichtseeren keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das
cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

"Caitie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

>> I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not
>> looking at the whole picture.
>
> There is no anti-helmet lobby. I challenge you to produce one post from this group in
> which anyone suggested that other people should not wear helmets if they want to. I don't
> believe you can.

But there are many that argue against even campaigns encouraging helmet

wear

Quoted message said:

for fear of setting up a "cycling is dangerous" perception.

The line of argument I find difficult runs something like: "I wear a

helmet

Quoted message said:

sometimes, even often, because I feel it gives me a benefit when I wear

it.

Quoted message said:

But I don't want the benefits of helmet wear to be publicised to others

less

Quoted message said:

knowledgeable than I lest they or others be discouraged from

cycling"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think if we stick "exaggerated" before "benefits" we get a slightly sounder argument.
/whinge/ It seems most people are against the publicising of dubious

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

optimistic claims about the effectiveness of cycle helmets, as this would make compulsion more
likely. As no one seems to have come up

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

compelling evidence that shows a statistically significant benefit to populations wearing
helmets, it does seem logical to be against compulsion. In my (humble) view, central
government should not be concerned with preventing minor scrapes and bruises and concussion.
That's the job of personal responsibility. Those who don't want the bother of getting
concussion, scrapes, bruises and maybe the inconvenience of a trip to the A+E just to make
sure, choose to wear a helmet. Those with a misplaced sense of confidence, a relaxed view

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pain or who merely relish looking like they've lost a fight, don't! After reading through
everyones posts I suspect that the public view

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what helmets do and the message given by the marketing (save your

life)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is optimistic. The reality of what they actually do, does make them

well

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

worthwhile wearing but the expectation given by the marketing is inflated. Either that or
there are a lot of flawed studies being

thrown

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

around in this ng! What we need is either helmets that perform as well as the compulsion
people think they do, then they /may/ have a case for compulsion. But, given the number of
deaths the case for prosecuting people for riding

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

push bike with a bare head isn't particularly compelling. /whinge off/

Quoted message said:

Hello,

I know I might sound like a boring killjoy but I can't believe that people would ride without a
helmet. There is stacks of evidence that helmets significantly reduce the risk of injury and death
in cycling accidents and that legislation increases use of helmets. A meta-analysis of bicycle
helmet efficacy studies found statistically significant protective effect of helmets (Accident
Analysis & Prevention.
33(3):345-52, 2001). A case controlled study in the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in
preventing head injuries also ( JAMA.
276(24):1968-73, 1996 Dec 25) found that "Bicycle helmets, regardless of type, provide substantial
protection against head injuries for cyclists of all ages involved in crashes, including
crashes involving motor vehicles." (these are just 2 of 100's of studies)

Helmets are not that bad to wear anyway

Brilliant. Do you know if they're available online (nudge, nudge, link, link)?

Anyway, to answer your question up top,

Whether one wears a helmet depends on ones weighting of the 'inconvenience' of the helmet against
the weighting of the risk and the likelihood of serious injury, and attitude to concussion. The risk
of serious (i.e. hospital) injury to the head are smaller than a small thing thats been compacted by
a professional compactor with big muscles.[2] Think about it. How many times in the rest of your
life do you expect to fall off?[3] Once? Twice? If it's three times you need stabilisers! When you
think of it that way, not wearing a helmet becomes more understandable. Small chance of accident,
small chance of injury, not a great chance of that being to your head anyway, small chance of that
being serious anyway. The statement ' I don't see why anyone wouldn't drive a volvo' has a similar
answer. It's just different people making different judgements. Neither are wrong. (apart from the
odd helmetless one that falls off & does smack his head really hard).

[1] Where did 1 go?
[2] This is seriously small. Trust me.
[3] Mountain bikingdoesn't count - they're just asking for a spill! I'm just counting normal
everyday pleasure riding/commuting

Simon Brooke scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

[1] I'm not absolutely confident of my maths here. I used 20 - ( ( sqrt( 20) - sqrt( 10))^2)) =
20 - 1.7 = 18.3

Quoted message said:

However even if I'm wrong the force of a 20mph impact minus the force of a 10mph impact must
exceed the force of a 15mph impact.

20*20 = 400 10*10 = 100

400 - 100 = 300 Square root of 300 is 17.32

The way I see it is you are basically right but arithmetic needed adjustment.

Thank you, I have been worrying about that all night. I knew instinctively that the aswer had to
be about 17, because of the shape of the curve... 18.3 looked too high.

How about the math to show the way that the closed cell foam in the helmet reacts differently to the
higher impact? No thought not, that would be too balanced!

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Simon Brooke said:

On the other hand, the evidence we have suggests that wearing a helmet on the road is probably
_more_ (not less) dangerous than not wearing a helmet on the road. For myself, I am not
sufficiently convinced about the strengh of that evidence, so I wouldn't try to persuade anyone
else not to (although I don't myself). But I think it would be wildly irresponsible to advise
people _to_ wear one.

Can you point me to that evidence?

Specifically, evidence which shows that if I choose to wear a helmet but make no other changes to my
cycling behaviour I am at more risk of head injury?

Note, I'm not looking for large scale pre/post compulsion data, that is compounded and confounded by
a range of impenetrables (oops! perhaps not the best choice of word, but I'll leave it!) but
evidence of injury caused or made worse by wearing a helmet.

pk

I may as well throw in my tuppence worth.

My helmet:-

1. Keeps my head warm.
2. Protects it from some injuries, hitting low branches, the gound, low speed accidents, i.e. most common minor accidents.
3. Makes me look silly.

My helmet will not stop me getting killed if a large motor vehicle hits me at anything above 30MPH. I hope however that this will not be a common occurence.

And another thing, having recently returned from Australia, where they are compulsory, it is not a big issue, it's just like we are now used to using a seat belt in a car and feel naked when we haven't done it up (or is that just me).