Cyclists Who Wear Helmets 'Wasting Their Time'

[G e r h a r d Odendaal]

My head has been saved twice before, without a helmet I would not be typing this

[Maniax]

Take it from someone who has landed head first on tarmac(see thread, thank you Specialized). If it wasnt for my helmet I probably wouldnt have been able to type this reply.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Maniax

[Pieterg]

No Brain No Helmet,No Helmet No Brain

[GaryvdM]

Out of curiosity, question to those who have kindly offered their anecdotal evidence. How many of you were cycling as a sport (either training, or racing) and how many of your were commuting?

[GaryvdM]

No Brain No Helmet,No Helmet No Brain

 

Argumentum ad hominem...

[Skubarra]

Out of curiosity, question to those who have kindly offered their anecdotal evidence. How many of you were cycling as a sport (either training, or racing) and how many of your were commuting?

 

Out of curiosity, would anecdotal evidence about helmets used when commuting change your mind about them being unnecessary?

[JohnnyReggae]

My helmet has saved my head, both in the mountain and on the road. IMO you'd be extremely foolish not to wear one. But if you don't want to wear one that's your prerogative, your head, your life.

[GaryvdM]

Out of curiosity, would anecdotal evidence about helmets used when commuting change your mind about them being unnecessary?

 

No. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable in contrast to scientific evidence. In this topic, it is particularity prone to confirmation bias.

 

If there was a lack of scientific evidence on the topic, I would consider the anecdotal evidence, but since there is plenty of scientific evidence, I choose to ignore the anecdotal evidence. The scientific evidence can't tell use everything, e.g. for the question of to what degree a helmet prevents injuries in an accident, the scientific evidence is conflicting. It's still more reliable than anecdotal evidence.

 

My reason for asking the question I'm interested to see if there is a correlation in South Africa to this observation: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

 

Just to make my position clear: I'm against helmet laws, and the promotion of helmet use, because it reduces the number of people cycling, and this in tern makes the roads more dangerous. (This is back up by scientific evidence.) I'm not say you should not wear a helmet.

Edited June 14, 2014 by GaryvdM

[Skubarra]

No. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable in contrast to scientific evidence. In this topic, it is particularity prone to confirmation bias.

 

If there was a lack of scientific evidence on the topic, I would consider the anecdotal evidence, but since there is plenty of scientific evidence, I choose to ignore the anecdotal evidence. The scientific evidence can't tell use everything, e.g. for the question of to what degree a helmet prevents injuries in an accident, the scientific evidence is conflicting. It's still more reliable than anecdotal evidence.

 

My reason for asking the question I'm interested to see if there is a correlation in South Africa to this observation: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

 

Just to make my position clear: I'm against helmet laws, and the promotion of helmet use, because it reduces the number of people cycling, and this in tern makes the roads more dangerous. (This is back up by scientific evidence.) I'm not say you should not wear a helmet.

 

Thought you were just being mischievous when asking for anecdotal evidence in your previous post

[DJR]

Agreed on scientific and anecdotal evidence. Just remember that you should look at all the scientific evidence. Not just what supports your own hypothesis. Then you should weigh that evidence carefully, because scientific evidence also range from solid gold to garbage, just like anecdotal evidence. What you are left with can then be used to make an informed decision on the subject, but even that may leave you with conflicting results. Not so clear cut.

 

I have some doubts about the scientific evidence that points out increased risk taking by helmet wearing cyclists. Those riders would be taking the risk anyway and protective gear will certainly reduce their injuries. To extrapolate this to the overall cycling community is not scientifically correct.

 

I also mistrust the scientific evidence showing that motorists treat helmet wearing riders more dangerously by passing closer to them. These studies were done in very limited places and in very specific societies and cannot be considered applicable for the rest of the world or for all road types.

 

The hardest scientific evidence for helmet use is still the old drop tests done many years ago. These tests were not scientifically perfect, but they are the best we have.

 

For ethical reasons it currently is just not possible to do a study on the effectiveness of helmets in preventing head and brain injuries. Imagine strapping in a hundred chimpanzees wearing helmets and smashing them against a wall to see how they compare to the bare headed ones. Then try different helmet designs on a couple hundred more monkeys. Oh, and then you have to decide on the severity of the injuries, so you give them a monkey puzzle to do before you kill them and autopsy them. Cannot be done today.

 

So, the scientists are left to do studies like picking over hospital records and such things. Unfortunately most of these studies are flawed from the start because the data they use is flawed already. (Pre-selected)

 

So, what are we to use? Perhaps some common sense?

 

The way I see it :

1. In safe commuting type cycle lanes, separated from traffic, or in slow moving pedestrian & cycle paths, helmets will probably have very little effect on injuries. (Think Holland)
   
2. In fast moving traffic, on roads shared with cars, helmets will very likely prevent serious head injuries or lessen them. (Think Main Road Southern Suburbs)
   
3. In competitive road cycling and racing, helmets will definitely prevent serious head injuries or lessen them (Think Argus)
   
4. In recreational mountain biking helmets will most likely make the biggest difference preventing less serious head injuries as most crashes are slow speed (Think Tokai Forest)
   
5. In competitive mountain biking and in disciplines like downhill, BMX and enduro, the fact that they wear full face helmets by choice, should provide the answer. (Think Greg Minnaar)
   

I have no scientific evidence for the above, just used common sense but that doesn't make it wrong.

[jmaccelari]

This 'professor' (professional d**s), just goes to show that you can't lift some people intellectually no matter how much education you give them. He's an arrogant **** with his attitude on the road. Imagine the tosser in a car! Here's a more reasoned reply to his bull****: http://road.cc/conte...oing-helmet-row

Edited June 16, 2014 by jmaccelari

[Shebeen]

excellent post, my thoughts exactly. I was very comfortable riding without a helmet in amsterdam, less so in London but hardly rode with one there.

 

Wouldn't go onto our CT roads without one.

 

 

 

The way I see it :

1. In safe commuting type cycle lanes, separated from traffic, or in slow moving pedestrian & cycle paths, helmets will probably have very little effect on injuries. (Think Holland)
    
   
2. In fast moving traffic, on roads shared with cars, helmets will very likely prevent serious head injuries or lessen them. (Think Main Road Southern Suburbs)
    
   
3. In competitive road cycling and racing, helmets will definitely prevent serious head injuries or lessen them (Think Argus)
    
   
4. In recreational mountain biking helmets will most likely make the biggest difference preventing less serious head injuries as most crashes are slow speed (Think Tokai Forest)
    
   
5. In competitive mountain biking and in disciplines like downhill, BMX and enduro, the fact that they wear full face helmets by choice, should provide the answer. (Think Greg Minnaar)
   

I have no scientific evidence for the above, just used common sense but that doesn't make it wrong.

[V12man]

@Garyvdm - if you say that helmet wearers are wasting their time - then you should consider this:

 

Where is the evidence that helmet wearing exacerbates head injuries?

[SwissVan]

"He cited research which suggests that wearing a helmet may in fact put cyclists at greater risk - because drivers get around three inches closer to riders wearing helmets"

 

Quote from the OP's linked article

 

Find it hard to believe that motorists could / would intentionally / unintentionally drive 3 inches closer to a cyclist JUST because they see the cyclist is wearing a helmet.

 

I know there is research that proves suggests this is true, this is not new its been researched and discussed before but its still UNBELIEVABLE

[DIPSLICK]

unintentionally drive 3 inches closer to a cyclist JUST because they see the cyclist is wearing a helmet.

 

:eek:

then cars should ride 6"closer to big guys

[Fujioso]

Way back in 1991, helmets were not compulsory. I crashed and ended up with a severe concussion. A helmet would have prevented this. Since then I have been riding with a helmet.

 

I have crashed many times since then, but no concussion yet. The helmets though bear the scars that would have been on my head.