Helmets Save Your Bonce

[Tuckerjenkins]

If you wear a helmet and fall off your bike your head with helmet attached it is more likely to make contact with the ground than your head hitting the ground if you had not been wearing one.
Therefore when people say "that could have been my head" they are off the mark.
Most people i've met don't have massive heads. Your "head" becomes a lot bigger when you stick a lump of polystyrene on it making it a lot more likely that you'll bang it if you fall off.

:shock:

If you tell people to wear a helmet then don't be suprised if they tell you to STFU / Jog on.

 

[xerxes]

The problem for me, apart from getting too hot, is that most helmets just seem to perch on the top of my mega-noggin.

 

[The History Man]

PurpleFrog, do you assume I'm pro then because i choose to wear one or am I just exercising my personal choice?

Oldmuthariley, doesnt the same apply to crash helmets for motorcycles? I can go faster than a moped on my pushbike but no helmet required.

Come to think of it this also applies to PF's argument re bike crash helmets.

 

[PurpleFrog]

PurpleFrog, do you assume I'm pro then because i choose to wear one or am I just exercising my personal choice?

My comments no assumption either way: what you say is simply incorrect.

Oh - and you were also incorrect to refer to certain claims as "annecdotal evidence". Annecdotal evidence would be something like "I saw a large silver saucer shaped thing, then I can't remember the next several hours, but I woke up feeling sore and so used." Or "I had a crash at 20mph and my helmet was intact". A claim like "I had a crash and I wore a helmet and I am still alive, so my helmet saved me!!!" is beneath the level of annecdotal evidence - because even if was non-annecdotal it wouldn't be evidence because the conclusion is bizarre and unwarranted - because it's actually pretty damn routine to survive bike crashes. It's just junk logic.

 

[Raging_Bulls]

Oldmuthariley, doesnt the same apply to crash helmets for motorcycles. I can go faster than a moped on my pushbike but no helmet required.

Yes, theoretically you can go faster on your bike. However 90% of the time the moped will be the one that's going faster, especially if it's a 16-year old with an 1100cc big-bore kit and nitrous system on his Honda Camino (or whatever youths ride nowadays).
Also, moped riders are more likely to ride on the road, where accidents with cars are much more common. In that case, you may find a motorcycle helmet useful.

Conclusion : If they want to make helmets mandatory, they'd better force everyone (including pedestrians) to wear full-face motorcycle helmets.

 

[The History Man]

Didn't realise I had to get past the 'logic police'. Apparently not taking this seriously enough to explain everything. The it I spoke of is the supposition that helmets do/do not save heads.

I was merely contemplating he randomness of incidents and difficulty in comparing like for like with a single helmet variable so hard to quantify. Qualitative research/anecdotes being relied upon by the me in my musings.

 

[The History Man]

Interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898

 

[PurpleFrog]

Didn't realise I had to get past the 'logic police'.

I think all statements attempting to draw conclusions from facts should be logical, yes.

I was merely contemplating he randomness of incidents and difficulty in comparing like for like with a single helmet variable so hard to quantify. Qualitative research/anecdotes being relied upon by the me in my musings.

You are confusing definiteness and precision - a common error. For example, it was claimed back in the 80's - and is still claimed by some MHL advocates - that cycling helmets would reduce cyclist fatalites by around 80-90%. We can DEFINITELY say this not true! More, we can say that a reduction in deaths of greater than 10-16% is impossible by looking at crash reports, ebergy levels, and helmet performance. We can do the same for lesser injuries - for example, helmets just don't offer enough g-reduction or absorb enough energy to offer a significant reduction in concussions. Etc. This is extremely important because this debunks ALL the arguments used for MHLs, and MHLs have a huge impact on cycling.

 

[The History Man]

My post consisted of personal opinion, choice, thoughts and observation. Didn't draw any conclusions other than I thought it hard to measure and reach any to support either argument.

Not interested enforcing helmets or otherwise. Just found it an interesting debate given the apparent difficulties as above.

Surprised there's such strong feeling about what remains a personal choice. That aside, I agree with the 'no helmet no ride' policy operated on here.

 

[tintin40]

still going