Why We Shouldn't Bike with a Helmet

[Wyatt Earp]

OP.

 

Out of pure interest and this is not for baiting.

How long have you now been an avid cyclist, and please don't include the rides to school and back.

[Iron]

If people had any savvy, and I mean real savvy and insight with a bit of hope, they wouldn't flame you but actually leave you to your own devices.

 

amen !

[Guest Travis.]

Sigh...

 

Here's an actual article that is in a library - not a link to a site with no publication. And it supports the wear of a helmet.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001855/abstract;jsessionid=375EEE6FD0B08CC39006761EB7BFBCF1.d01t04

 

Now thank you and give me published data, before giving me links to sites.

[Wayne Potgieter]

Sigh...

 

Here's an actual article that is in a library - not a link to a site with no publication. And it supports the wear of a helmet.

 

http://onlinelibrary...B7BFBCF1.d01t04

 

Now thank you and give me published data, before giving me links to sites.

Does being on the internet count as published?

[Wayne Potgieter]

here is a link that will explain it all guys.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=this+is+such+a+pointless+stupid+debate

[Guest Travis.]

Does being on the internet count as published?

 

I guess in a way it's published, but it's not a published article - thus has not gone through review panels showing that the data is valid and the facts checked, etc.

[Wayne Potgieter]

I guess in a way it's published, but it's not a published article - thus has not gone through review panels showing that the data is valid and the facts checked, etc.

But if its on the internet it must be true?

[Butterbean]

A parts from the blind faith reasoning, how about a slightly scientific one?

 

Please note before you start reading, I'm no expert and only paid a little attention to my high school science teacher, but I remember leading this one day:

 

In order to lessen the injury from a sudden stop impact (like those found in car accidents, body damage in falls, etc) you need to lengthen the time and distance of the impacts energy. In other words, the longer the energy can travel before it reaches you, the less damage occurs to the final component in the impact (in this case were talking about the occupants of a vehicle or a pedestrian).

 

This is why cars now have crumple zones - if the front suffers an impact, and no crumple zones exist, little force is absorbed by the actual structure (car). This means that occupants experience most of the force on impact. If, however, like our newer cars, the engine drops on impact and the crumple zones absorb most of the impact (one of the reasons today's cars get written off so easily, not like grandpa's old Granada 3.0L), then the structure has absorbed most of the energy on impact and the occupants as little as possible.

 

If I'm wearing a helmet, and the impact occurs at 10 or 40 kms an hour, I don't care much what speed, then it means I have at least 5cm of foam and casing which absorb some of the energy upon collision. How much is debatable, and how much of an effect that has is too (as we've seen in this thread). The fact is, however, that there is a "crumple zone" effect and ill take that any day.

 

All in all, I still think you're an idiot if you don't wear one. Those who profess otherwise just sound like I did when trying to prove to my parents why I shouldn't go to school on Fridays. "I don't concentrate anyway", and "but the teachers don't even give us homework" didn't work then - and your notions of "they make no difference", and "only for sport" just sound like a whining teenager who's trying to validate a stupid decision.

 

Last thought:

 

Today while driving in bruma, I witnessed a man get hit by a car. A pedestrian who took a chance. His legs got caught by the bumper and head went through the windscreen. I can guarantee you he would have taken a helmet option if one had been afforded to him. Especially after seeing him bleeding out his ear canals and back of head abrasions...

 

Don't be a stupid price because you want to be rebellious to the rules. Grow the f*** up or get off the road.

[Wayne Potgieter]

 

Today while driving in bruma, I witnessed a man get hit by a car. A pedestrian who took a chance. His legs got caught by the bumper and head went through the windscreen. I can guarantee you he would have taken a helmet option if one had been afforded to him. Especially after seeing him bleeding out his ear canals and back of head abrasions...

 

 

 

Thats hectic.

 

Great post.

[Eldron]

Just some devil's advocate to the you're a cock if you don't wear a helmet bridage;

 

You don't wear a helmet when you drive, you don't wear a helmet, when you run down stairs, when you climb ladders? Why only bicycles?

 

To a large extent the "only wankers ride without a helmet" rhetoric is ingrained.

 

If you actually considered risk and reward you'd wear safety goggles mowing the lawn, safety goggles grinding anything etc.

 

I'm not trying to troll just saying the same or greater hazards exist in other spheres of life and yet most of us are happy to do carry on with zero protection...

[GaryvdM]

Sigh...

 

Here's an actual article that is in a library - not a link to a site with no publication. And it supports the wear of a helmet.

 

http://onlinelibrary...B7BFBCF1.d01t04

 

Now thank you and give me published data, before giving me links to sites.

 

Yhea, finally someone who is trying to contribute to the discussion in a meaning full way.

 

Now this site that I keep linking to, cyclehelmets.org, (that clearly nobody visits,) has on it a comprehensive list of scientific published & reviewed papers, as well as meta analysis on the papers.

 

The paper you link to is on there, and guess what, I had previously read most of the paper.

 

So on that paper there have been a number of peer published criticisms which are relevant:

 

Elvik, 2011 has criticised the criteria used for the inclusion of studies in this review, noting that most of the included studies were the work of the reviewers themselves. Citing criteria estalished by Littell, Corcoran and Pillai, 2008, Elvik suggests that the authors had a conflict of interest in carrying out the review which they have not declared. In considering the assessment of quality of the same papers used by Towner et al, 2002, Elvik, 2011 finds that it is not at all clear that the omitted studies were of lower quality than the studies included. A more transparent process would have included all the papers together with the publication of quality scores and a sensitivity analysis.

As part of his re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001, Elvik, 2011 considered the same studies used in the Cochrane Review and also more recently published studies. Later studies show no net benefit from helmets with regard to injuries to the head, face and neck.

Curnow, 2005 examines the Cochrane Review in detail. He concludes that the review takes no account of scientific knowledge of the types and mechanisms of brain injury. It provides, at best, evidence that hard-shell helmets, now rarely used, protect the brain from injury consequent upon damage to the skull. The review therefore is not a reliable guide to the efficacy of helmets and to interventions concerning their use.

 

Now how do I know that no body has clicked on any of the links I have provided: One of the pages I linked to has this:

 

Had any of you click on that link, I would have received a firing of quotes, but yet the only person who has posted anything at the time I started writing this post, the only person to have posted anything of the sort was beertjie.

 

I'm hoping you guys will go do some reading and then we can have a proper debate, and lose the need to post all the personal attacks.

Edited July 9, 2013 by garyvdm

[Wayne Potgieter]

Just some devil's advocate to the you're a cock if you don't wear a helmet bridage;

 

You don't wear a helmet when you drive, you don't wear a helmet, when you run down stairs, when you climb ladders? Why only bicycles?

 

To a large extent the "only wankers ride without a helmet" rhetoric is ingrained.

 

If you actually considered risk and reward you'd wear safety goggles mowing the lawn, safety goggles grinding anything etc.

 

I'm not trying to troll just saying the same or greater hazards exist in other spheres of life and yet most of us are happy to do carry on with zero protection...

A little while ago i was cutting my sons toenails. A piece of nail shot up and got lodged behind my eyelid for two hours. hurt like a mother.

 

I now wear safety goggles when i got my kids toenails.

 

It hillarious.

[Eldron]

A little while ago i was cutting my sons toenails. A piece of nail shot up and got lodged behind my eyelid for two hours. hurt like a mother.

 

I now wear safety goggles when i got my kids toenails.

 

It hillarious.

 

Damnit - now I need to clean coffee off my keyboard again :-)

[Wayne Potgieter]

Damnit - now I need to clean coffee off my keyboard again :-)

To aggravate the situation i am actually blind in the one eye, so i am VERY protective over my good eye.

 

Guess which eye got savaged and attacked by the toenail clipping of doom????

[Guest Travis.]

Yhea, finally someone who is trying to contribute to the discussion in a meaning full way.

 

Now this site that I keep linking to, cyclehelmets.org, (that clearly nobody visits,) has on it a comprehensive list of scientific published & reviewed papers, as well as meta analysis on the papers.

 

The paper you link to is on there, and guess what, I had previously read most of the paper.

 

So on that paper there have been a number of peer published criticisms which are relevant:

 

 

 

Now how do I know that no body has clicked on any of the links I have provided: One of the pages I linked to has this:

 

Had any of you click on that link, I would have received a firing of quotes, but yet the only person who has posted anything at the time I started writing this post, the only person to have posted anything of the sort was beertjie.

 

I'm hoping you guys will go do some reading and then we can have a proper debate, and lose the need to post all the personal attacks.

 

Read why it's a law in UK to wear one:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202152201/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=6#a1015

 

Here's a summary:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/rmd/project.asp?intProjectID=10083

 

They deliberately went and done research to see if it should be a law and why and also how to define the law.

 

It's irrefutable that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one. That is a fact and cannot be disproved.

Even if it is only effective against minor injuries, it is effective for that purpose and hence safer.

[Wyatt Earp]

..

 

Don't be a stupid price because you want to be rebellious to the rules. Grow the f*** up or get off the road.

 

Word up.

Enough said