Cyclists without helmets on..

[Writerwannabe83]

Am I the only one who gets really annoyed about this?

If it is the law that us drivers have to wear seatbelts why is their safety choice an optional one?

IF we knocked a cyclist of his bike and he suffered irreparable brain damage or death as a result of a head injury it is us who would have to live with that guilt, even though they made the choice not to wear a helmet.

And then you see some parents out with their children on bikes and although the children always have helmets on, not all the parents do. It is great they are protecting their children, but why do they think their own brains don't matter? I don't mind cyclists on the road at all, but I wish they would wear helmets and keep themselves safe.

Maybe I'm just overly anxious about hitting one....or do they think it will never happen to them?

Bit wouldn't you want your head to be protected if you fell after skidding on ice that was on the road?

Even if it can't fully protect you if you have a crash with a car, helmets still serve some safety purpose in smaller incidents so why wouldn't cyclists want to take advantage of that?

So we may as well say pedestrians should wear body armor when crossing a road because they'll be safer!

Why do all threads discussing cyclists go like this?

Just wear a helmet-can't do any harm.

Are you discounting those reasons WMittens? There is evidence backing both up. So it just isn't as clear cut as helmets reduce your risk of injury.

There is evidence of potential harm. That's the point.

But a cyclist can take all safety measures available WMittens as my husband did, and still end up being hit. A helmet will do very little in a large number of accidents. Helmets are not as foolproof as some car drivers seem to think.

Why is the discussion not moving from 'cyclists should do more' to 'cars and other motorised road users could do more'?

There has recently been an awful case in Scotland where the judge said the cyclist contributed to her own death by not wearing a helmet. The main thing that contributed to her death was the truck driver who drove over her. She was the second cyclist he has killed. The judge has since been reprimanded. I'm not sure of the point I'm making, sorry. Adults should have choice. I choose to wear a cycle helmet on long rides but not short ones. Which I know is daft.

Also, as I mentioned in my earlier post a helmet made little difference when my husband was hit. The side of his body and handlebars took the brunt of the accident. His head did not hit the floor. He was bruised and sore for weeks, he was also availing himself of all the possible safety gear possible at the time. The car driver was at fault for not looking properly or simply not caring. Cycle often enough and you see and hear about plenty of SMIDSYs.

If you're in a crash with a car, it will do pretty much sweet FA!

Based on what?

Crash test videos:

(motorcycle, but demonstrates the priniciple)

In every one of the 5 examples in these 4 videos, the head meets the car with significant force. A helmet will help dissipate the force and could reduce damage below fatal levels.

But a cyclist can take all safety measures available WMittens as my husband did, and still end up being hit.

I don't know that anyone is claiming that helmets are the magical thing that will prevent all accidents. It is about taking available steps to reduce risk.

I agree about reducing risks, but that second video a helmet will really do very little as the head goes through the windscreen. If you look at the composition of many cycle helmets they are not as tough as people expect.

But why would you not wear one if there's a chance it will help-say if you fell off your bike cycling over a pothole or something?

Also, as I mentioned in my earlier post a helmet made little difference when my husband was hit. The side of his body and handlebars took the brunt of the accident. His head did not hit the floor.

Well no, in that situation a helmet isn't going to help. It doesn't mean heads never hit the floor, the car or other objects in an accident, it just means your husband's head (luckily) didn't hit anything.

Exactly WMittens - taking steps to reduce risk is exactly my point.

it is an option, some cyclists find that helmets reduce vision and hearing. It is an adult decision, not the obvious one of wearing a seat-belt in a car.

I knew someone who was knocked off his bike by a murderous driver and had a bad throat injury from the helmet strap. Never cut and dried.

However kids should wear cycle helmets, end of.

stop being annoyed at other road users and concentrate on your own driving.

I cycle in London, where average traffic speeds are usually well below 20 mph. Around here cars don't generally kill or seriously injure cyclists - HGVs do. By crushing them to death. And helmets will make no difference to that whatsoever.

I wear one primarily to set an example to DC (who have softer skulls) and also in case of a freak pothole/stone/ice skid etc. Having said that I've been cycling daily for 15+ years and yet to come off.

but that second video a helmet will really do very little as the head goes through the windscreen.

Well yeah, if there's a massive speed differential it's not going to help. However, if we're talking lower speeds and the helmet brings the injury below the threshold of death, or the threshold of brain damage, then why would you not wear one?

The whole point of risk is you don't know what will happen, not when. We don't have the luxury of knowing when to wear PPE and when we don't need it.

If you are taking "all available steps to reduce risk" (putting aside the fact that they may increase your risk of an accident) then presumably you apply that to all other areas of life? You know, like not skiing, horse riding, crossing roads, driving a car etc....

Are you discounting those reasons WMittens? There is evidence backing both up.

I'd like to view the evidence before making my mind up completely, if you've got any links?

How do you explain to children why they have to wear a helmet but adults don't?

I don't Sparkling - hence wearing one myself. In fact my FIL never wore a helmet til DS was born as he decided it was impossible to explain to a young child why he didn't.

Re evidence, I'm typing one handed on my phone while BFing so not really easy but will try & link

Isn't it leading by example Vinegar?

If you are taking "all available steps to reduce risk" (putting aside the fact that they may increase your risk of an accident)

That is an oxymoron; I'm not sure you understand the nature of risk. Risk is a product of frequency and severity. I suppose it is feasible that measures could increase frequency, but if the steps (as I stated) reduce risk then the severity must be reduced by a greater proportion. Otherwise, the steps do not reduce risk, so you don't take those steps.

then presumably you apply that to all other areas of life? You know, like not skiing, horse riding, crossing roads, driving a car etc....

Don't be daft. See my earlier comment about living.

Are those the most risky activities you could think of? In the last year I've done skydiving, rally car driving, a 12 mile assault course race, and in the past I've done motorbike track days and hare n hound (off road motorbike) races. A bungee jump is on the cards within a year.

vinegar - of course people ski, ride horses, cross roads and drive cars, but they do it whilst taking steps to reduce the risk of any injury. Just as cyclists should do.

Here are Ben Goldacre's links, can't get them all on my phone so haven't read them

4. ? Phillips RO, Fyhri A, Sagberg F. Risk compensation and b icycle helmets. Risk Anal 2011;31:1187-95. CrossRef Medline

5. ? Adams J. Risk. Taylor & Francis, 2002.

6. ? Walker I. Drivers overtaking bicyclists: objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and appa rent gender. Accid Anal Prev 2007;39:417-25. CrossRef Medline