Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 25/02/2019 09:37, RJH wrote:
'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have
thought?

I wouldn't. I would imagine that 'vehicle impact' involves being 'thrown
off'.

On 25/02/2019 11:29, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:32:30 AM UTC, RJH wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:44, Simon Jester wrote:
I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.


Nope, just cycling, motorbiking and skiing.


Michael Schumacher would probably like to comment on that if he could.

Was he wearing a helmet?

On 25/02/2019 12:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/02/2019 09:37, RJH wrote:
'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have
thought?

I wouldn't. I would imagine that 'vehicle impact' involves being 'thrown
off'.

OK, got it.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 25/02/2019 12:10, GB wrote:
On 25/02/2019 11:29, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:32:30 AM UTC, RJH wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:44, Simon Jester wrote:
I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.


Nope, just cycling, motorbiking and skiing.


Michael Schumacher would probably like to comment on that if he could.

Was he wearing a helmet?


Yes, and skiing got me in to this helmet for cycling business. Cracked
my head - hard - a couple of times skiing, and (luckily) that made me
think. The helmet has saved me a couple of nasty skiing knocks. Weirdly,
on my last holiday a couple of weeks back, the worst was some idiot
turned while holding his skis at shoulder height, and swung them into
the back of my head.

I think Schumacher's accident was a trail of very unfortunate circumstances.

Cycling does of course have a different set of risks, and a helmet only
protects against a possibly small proportion of those. But, as I say,
given the low costs and hassle, why not.

Although - I think a couple of you have suggested the risk of injury
goes up when wearing a cycling helmet - the example of child fatalities,
and motorists being more likely to drive into cyclists with helmets.
I've also heard people suggest false sense of security - but I don't
have one of those ;-)

Quite willing to listen, but not convinced yet . . .

--
Cheers, Rob

On 23/02/2019 00:49, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1745...afety-warning/

I bought a helmet a few weeks ago and within a couple of rides I had a
crash that involved me going over the handle bars and rolling along the
ground afterwards.

Surprisingly the only injury I got was a small scratch on my leg. So now
I can number myself amongst the cyclists whose life has been saved by a
helmet.

Thank you MrCheerful, if it weren't for you I would probably be dead.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:42:52 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 24/02/2019 20:54, Rob Morley wrote:

But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit
by a car if you're wearing a helmet?

Ah, no, I didn't know that. Why might that be likely? Is this
evidenced at all, or some theory extrapolated?

Risk compensation by drivers. It's been measured by at least one
proper study. Obviously there's still the element of a driver
misjudging speed and/or distance badly enough to hit you, but the
reduction in error margin is real.

On 25/02/2019 17:16, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:42:52 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 24/02/2019 20:54, Rob Morley wrote:

But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit
by a car if you're wearing a helmet?

Ah, no, I didn't know that. Why might that be likely? Is this
evidenced at all, or some theory extrapolated?

Risk compensation by drivers. It's been measured by at least one
proper study. Obviously there's still the element of a driver
misjudging speed and/or distance badly enough to hit you, but the
reduction in error margin is real.


OK, thanks - is that the heart rate variability study of 2011? it's the
only one I can find - "helmet users reported higher experienced risk and
cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet"?

--
Cheers, Rob

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:00:57 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 25/02/2019 17:16, Rob Morley wrote:

Risk compensation by drivers. It's been measured by at least one
proper study. Obviously there's still the element of a driver
misjudging speed and/or distance badly enough to hit you, but the
reduction in error margin is real.


OK, thanks - is that the heart rate variability study of 2011? it's
the only one I can find - "helmet users reported higher experienced
risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet"?

Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not
drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:37:35 +0000, RJH wrote:
On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH wrote:

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.

What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?

How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?

I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet
would make a cycling injury worse.

When I was last knocked off my bike I was not wearing a helmet and my
head didn't hit anything, but it did pass very close by a kerbstone.
Had I been wearing a helmet, there's a chance that rather than just
miss it would have hit the kerbstone, possibly tangentially and
wrenched my head round.

Since I suffered absolutely no head or neck injury, a helmet simply
could not have helped - you can't get less than no injury. There are
easily foreseeable scenarios where it could have made matters worse.

Also consider the consequences of risk compensation.

Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
interaction with a motor vehicle).

Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes
me twice as likely to be hit by a car?

No. "Suppose I had..." indicates a hypothetical. It's a thought
experiment. You're supposed to think about the hypothetical scenario
set out, consider what would happen if it were true, and then consider
whether that conclusion should influence what is true.

Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
they aren't suitable for motor sport.

'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought?

I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit
by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by
fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the
ground does when you get to it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 7:15:39 PM UTC, Ian Smith wrote:

I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit
by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by
fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the
ground does when you get to it.

I have never worn a cycling helmet in 60 years and have hit my head only once when my front wheel slipped on some diesel. I hit my head on the road and had a bump on my bonce for a few days, that's all.