Why Do I See So Many Cyclist Without Helmets?

[carbon29er]

Challenge/Lecture/Dicks/Halfwits. Not every exchange between two people needs to be so negative.

 

Not everything needs to be militant and aggressive. There is an area between radicals and apologists that exists, its where the majority of people live

The guy who perpetually posts photos of cyclists on the M5 and jumping T-junction red lights is a dick. Fact. Not just any guy. But one particular guy. Breaks the law by taking a photo while driving in order to chastise someone else breaking the law. How is that not dickish? Even discounting his personality.

 

I am neither militant nor aggressive. Unless you hoot at me aggressively when I am riding my bike within the law. But I am opinionated. That is unlikely to change.

[Patchelicious]

The guy who perpetually posts photos of cyclists on the M5 and jumping T-junction red lights is a dick. Fact. Not just any guy. But one particular guy. Breaks the law by taking a photo while driving in order to chastise someone else breaking the law. How is that not dickish? Even discounting his personality.

 

I am neither militant nor aggressive. Unless you hoot at me aggressively when I am riding my bike within the law. But I am opinionated. That is unlikely to change.

So I can hoot at you if you aren't wearing a helmet?

['Dale]

I wear a helmet for 99% of my time on the bike and it's really saved me a couple of times. Still, I don't want somebody dictating to me what risks I'm allowed to take when it doesn't concern them. If I want to cruise down to the beach in my flip flops and cap, I don't feel like it's anyone's business and likewise for me to dictate to somebody else what risks they are allowed to take.

This ????????????????????????

 

I regularly cruise to the local gym 3.51 kms away for my Vitality smoo-vee

 

I always wear the finest cycling cap though

Without any cap of any sorts would be so inappropriate ????

[IceCreamMan]

Let me start by saying I do always wear my helmet when riding in SA as I would not want to incur the wrath of the Hub.[/size]

 

 [/size]

 

However, I hail from Holland and there bikes tend to be used for commuting rather than sport and basically no-one is wearing helmets (and neither do I when I go back).[/size]

 

 [/size]

 

If you rent a bike, no helmet is supplied with it either.[/size]

 

 [/size]

 

So you would think that Holland has a much higher occurrence of serious damage to heads due to bike crashes (as opposed to visiting coffee shops). However, some universities have done some research and this is not the case. One can debate whether this is because the cycling infrastructure is much better and thus there are fewer accidents or commuting is at a slower pace or some other reason.[/size]

 

 

 

It is sort of an interesting fact that in a country hailed as a cycling mecca, the vast majority of cyclists do not wear a lid[/size]

This is what I was saying, everyone will blindly believe that helmets save lives an injuries but when one looks at the research its very contradictory. No clear cut verdict on the subject, yet "everyone" will swear blindly how effective they are... How does this perception exist when the facts don't support it. Are we sheep?

 

Interesting you mention speed, where helmets are potentially of more benefit is at lower speeds. As speed increases the potential benefits of helmets decreases.

 

Ultimately the jury is out on the subject, which in itself is strange seeing as much research has been done but findings are often contradictory. So in effect, without scientific backup , we have a section of the population hauling another lot over the coals for doing something that may actually be completely pointless. REminds me a bit of this

 

http://www.wisdompills.com/2014/05/28/the-famous-social-experiment-5-monkeys-a-ladder/

 

Ultimately we should be cautious of looking at things in isolation as that gives you a jaundiced view.

Edited January 5, 2017 by IceCreamMan

[Skubarra]

The guy who perpetually posts photos of cyclists on the M5 and jumping T-junction red lights is a dick. Fact. Not just any guy. But one particular guy. Breaks the law by taking a photo while driving in order to chastise someone else breaking the law. How is that not dickish? Even discounting his personality.

 

I am neither militant nor aggressive. Unless you hoot at me aggressively when I am riding my bike within the law. But I am opinionated. That is unlikely to change.

 

I hear you, I also don't want to be that guy chastising people for breaking "harmless" laws like jumping T-junction red lights & not wearing helmets while commuting.

 

but, my issue here, is that there is a culture among us cyclists that we treat road laws and rules as optional and ignore it when it's convenient ie it is inconvenient for me to stop and unclip at the red robot so I just jump it if there are no oncoming traffic.

 

But at the same time we demand motorists abide by the law 100% of the time, get angry when they park in a cycling lane or pass closer than 1m to, us talk on a cell while driving etc

 

I think a good start to get motorists to respect us more is for cyclists to have more respect for the laws/rules ourselves, even the stupid ones.

[Patchelicious]

This is what I was saying, everyone will blindly believe that helmets save lives an injuries but when one looks at the research its very contradictory. No clear cut verdict on the subject, yet "everyone" will swear blindly how effective they are... How does this perception exist when the facts don't support it. Are we sheep?

 

Interesting you mention speed, where helmets are potentially of more benefit is at lower speeds. As speed increases the potential benefits of helmets decreases.

 

Ultimately the jury is out on the subject, which in itself is strange seeing as much research has been done but findings are often contradictory. So in effect, without scientific backup , we have a section of the population hauling another lot over the coals for doing something that may actually be completely pointless. REminds me a bit of this

 

http://www.wisdompills.com/2014/05/28/the-famous-social-experiment-5-monkeys-a-ladder/

I think the mistake you are making is that you keep saying EVERYONE BELIEVES BLINDY.

 

SOME research is contradictory, not all. There is always contradictory research.

 

But I think you need to stop labelling the majority based on the minority.

This goes for both research and "believers". 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Patchelicious

[Patchelicious]

I hear you, I also don't want to be that guy chastising people for breaking "harmless" laws like jumping T-junction red lights & not wearing helmets while commuting.

 

but, my issue here, is that there is a culture among us cyclists that we treat road laws and rules as optional and ignore it when it's convenient ie it is inconvenient for me to stop and unclip at the red robot so I just jump it if there are no oncoming traffic.

 

But at the same time we demand motorists abide by the law 100% of the time, get angry when they park in a cycling lane or pass closer than 1m to, us talk on a cell while driving etc

 

I think a good start to get motorists to respect us more is for cyclists to have more respect for the laws/rules ourselves, even the stupid ones.

Sometimes, I agree more with you than myself!

[IceCreamMan]

your responses and arguments make me believe that you are the one with the ice cream cone on your forehead

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You gonna have to do a whole lot better than that ....jussus that's puerile but if you try a little harder I am sure you can come up with something a lot better.

 

As my lil lad says "Really".

[IceCreamMan]

I think the mistake you are making is that you keep saying EVERYONE BELIEVES BLINDY.

 

And SOME research is contradictory, not all. There is always contradictory research.

 

But I think you need to stop labelling the majority based on the minority.

This goes for both research and "believers".

well the fundamentals are simple, are helmets effective at saving lives or mitigating injuries?

 

the answer is either yes or no... and right now neither can be held as gospel. And this is the the strange part because intuitively most would say yes but research indicates otherwise.

 

Challenging ones paradigm always results in a bit of dissonance which is uncomfortable.

 

AS for the blindly part, if I look at the majority of posts on this thread,people certainly hold the view that helmets are effective yet findings are far from conclusive.

 

if I look at pro racing, the 13 years since helmets were mandatory have resulted in more deaths than the 13 years prior to that. A lot more with 2016 being particularly tragic. I have viewed these stats in isolation and that is obviously a dangerous thing to do but I think its fairly obvious that cycling deaths are more likely caused by factors other than the wearing of helmets and these have to be addressed, the helmet issue is a red herring at this point, made mandatory by lazy politicians who don't want to get to the nitty gritty of the issue.

[Jigghead]

Darwin has decided that 2017 is the year.

[Patchelicious]

well the fundamentals are simple, are helmets effective at saving lives or mitigating injuries?

 

the answer is either yes or no... and right now neither can be held as gospel. And this is the the strange part because intuitively most would say yes but research indicates otherwise. Gospel, no. Indicative, yes. Do helmets decrease head injuries in the event of a fall, yes they do.

 

Challenging ones paradigm always results in a bit of dissonance which is uncomfortable. Correct. But not all challenges are effective, correct or valid. Challenging for the sake of it on its own is not merit enough.

 

AS for the blindly part, if I look at the majority of posts on this thread,people certainly hold the view that helmets are effective yet findings are far from conclusive. ​So you are using the Hub as a data sample? If so then you need to also use it for data that does not support your view, like the many posts where people say that helmets indeed helped prevent injures to themselves. These are first hand accounts and should not be ignored or simply dismissed.

 

if I look at pro racing, the 13 years since helmets were mandatory have resulted in more deaths than the 13 years prior to that. A lot more with 2016 being particularly tragic. I have viewed these stats in isolation and that is obviously a dangerous thing to do but I think its fairly obvious that cycling deaths are more likely caused by factors other than the wearing of helmets and these have to be addressed, the helmet issue is a red herring at this point, made mandatory by lazy politicians who don't want to get to the nitty gritty of the issue. The increase in deaths would have nothing to do with making helmets mandatory. The helmet issue is not ONLY about deaths, but about avoiding injuries too.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Patchelicious

[Jigghead]

I swear by wearing a lid, more especially since I ran out of skill on a jump at around 40km/h some years back. My trusty Bell split in two with severe bruising on back and shoulders, and a suspected concussion to boot. 

 

Doc was of the opinion that a helmet may have saved my life or at the very least, some brain damage. Those accidents are accurate, especially considering the small target my wife thinks the accident had to damage in the first places...     

[Skylark]

I don't need a study or scientist to understand that if someone hit me on the head with a 10-pound hammer I'd be better off with a helmet on to mitigate some of the blow than just my skull.

 

If a person can't appreciate that then I'd have to say that they must have grossly unsound judgement.

[IceCreamMan]

Ultimately those that perceive helmets to be effective will wear them and that's fine and well and all is good.

 

Those that will absolutely believe the efficacy of helmets based on perceived scientific research however are grossly incorrect. Statistically the jury is out on this. Some data actually indicate contrary findings and statistically insignificant findings. This in itself should raise questions but for some or other reason people tend to look past this.

 

So, wear helmets if you feel you should and you hedging yr bets, but don't preach from your lofty perch when scientifically there is no conclusive backing an let those guys who ride without helmets do so without the benefit of your wonky science, I am sure they have heard it before and know about helmets and maybe they taking educated decisions.

 

At this point in time and with the research conducted there is no absolute proof that statistically helmets make any difference, some data indicates it does, and some data indicates it potentially promotes injury and death.

 

Do I wear a helmet, yes. Do I go to church on Sunday's, no.

[Patchelicious]

Ultimately those that perceive helmets to be effective will wear them and that's fine and well and all is good.

 

Those that will absolutely believe the efficacy of helmets based on perceived scientific research however are grossly incorrect. Statistically the jury is out on this. Some data actually indicate contrary findings and statistically insignificant findings. This in itself should raise questions but for some or other reason people tend to look past this. So until it is proven ABSOLUTELY, you think there is no merit in wearing one? 

 

So, wear helmets if you feel you should and you hedging yr bets, but don't preach from your lofty perch when scientifically there is no conclusive backing (What would you accept as conclusive? Lets ascertain that first, and see if its achievable) an let those guys who ride without helmets do so without the benefit of your wonky science, (could the same not be said about the "contradictory studies" that you keep referencing?)I am sure they have heard it before and know about helmets and maybe they taking educated decisions.

 

At this point in time and with the research conducted there is no absolute proof that statistically helmets make any difference, some most data indicates it does, and some data indicates it potentially promotes injury and death.

 

Do I wear a helmet, yes. Do I go to church on Sunday's, no. We here we agree with each other.

[Skylark]

Ultimately those that perceive helmets to be effective will wear them and that's fine and well and all is good.

 

Those that will absolutely believe the efficacy of helmets based on perceived scientific research however are grossly incorrect. Statistically the jury is out on this. Some data actually indicate contrary findings and statistically insignificant findings. This in itself should raise questions but for some or other reason people tend to look past this.

 

So, wear helmets if you feel you should and you hedging yr bets, but don't preach from your lofty perch when scientifically there is no conclusive backing an let those guys who ride without helmets do so without the benefit of your wonky science, I am sure they have heard it before and know about helmets and maybe they taking educated decisions.

 

At this point in time and with the research conducted there is no absolute proof that statistically helmets make any difference, some data indicates it does, and some data indicates it potentially promotes injury and death.

 

Do I wear a helmet, yes. Do I go to church on Sunday's, no.

A little IQ test.

 

Question 1:

 

If dealt a rough hand in life and therefore required to headbutt a tree or light pole running at full pace would you go with or without a helmet affixed to your skull?