Sealskinz Belgian cap

hsiaolc wrote:

The reviewer should not put his own preference in the review of this hat.
The fact that it won't fit under a helmet should be a one star for most of us who do wear a helmet for commuting.
Statistics says one thing be we all know that helmet is a safety item for those who wish to have that extra protection.
It is one of those things that you will regret not wearing if you did get into an accident where your head is the area that gets damaged.
I really don't care to educate those who doesn't want to be educated.

I'm not quite sure why the reviewer said that, I have one of these and it fits very comfortably under my helmet, though I do have a big head and therefore a big helmet.

truffy wrote:

Seat belts weren't compulsory then either.

And Coke used to contain cocaine.

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

Did you know that the seat belt law cost the lives of pedestrians and cyclists? This is admitted in an article in the statistical journal "Significance" by four menbers of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, all of them backers of the seat belt law.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/

Have a look at the entries on seat belts on this site.

KoenM wrote:

And btw throwing websites with "evidence" and "studies" is bullshit, i can put as many evidence and studies that prove otherwise,

Please "put as many evidence and studies that prove otherwise".

Your sincerity and caring nature do you credit, but shouting and asserting your beliefs do not work for me. If you want me to set a "good example", you will have to convince me.

If a country made helmets obligatory and the wearing rate went from about 30% to over 90%, what do you think would be the effect on head injury rate? When this happened in Australia the effect on cycling casualties was not detectable.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1242.html

I know you don't like evidence, especially if it contradicts your strongly held beliefs, but I like to use it, to show that what I write has some basis in fact.

felixcat][quote=KoenM wrote:

A
If a country made helmets obligatory and the wearing rate went from about 30% to over 90%, what do you think would be the effect on head injury rate? When this happened in Australia the effect on cycling casualties was not detectable.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1242.html

I know you don't like evidence, especially if it contradicts your strongly held beliefs, but I like to use it, to show that what I write has some basis in fact.

It would help if your study wasn't 20 years old (the data ends in 1994 and only runs for 7 years).

The problem with the studies are the "unobserved events" where somebody falls, hits their head, but walks away from the incident (helmeted or not) so there is no record of the event. All you get are the cases that end up getting reported probably because they resulted in a trip to the ER. Since the point of wearing a helmet is mitigating the damage in the event of a fall, these observed events skew the data.

I've busted 4 helmets in the last 10 years (OK I am clumsy). Only 2 of these required going to the ER but not for a brain injury (shoulder, ribs/lung). For the first of these the standard EMT's report didn't have a box for "wearing helmet" (I asked). So only 1 in 4 events would have resulted in a pro-helmet observation.

massspike wrote:

It would help if your study wasn't 20 years old (the data ends in 1994 and only runs for 7 years).

The problem with the studies are the "unobserved events" where somebody falls, hits their head, but walks away from the incident (helmeted or not) so there is no record of the event. All you get are the cases that end up getting reported probably because they resulted in a trip to the ER. Since the point of wearing a helmet is mitigating the damage in the event of a fall, these unobserved events skew the data.

I've busted 4 helmets in the last 10 years (OK I am clumsy). Only 2 of these required going to the ER but not for a brain injury (shoulder, ribs/lung). For the first of these the standard EMT's report didn't have a box for "wearing helmet" (I asked). So only 1 in 4 events would have resulted in a pro-helmet observation.

You miss the point twice here.

The study is about the effects of helmet compulsion. It is particularly compelling because the law produced a big step change in the rate of helmet wearing. This DID not produce a step change in cycling casualties. If helmets work there should have been a large and sudden change in the rate. What happens years later is not relevant. Are you suggesting that years later helmets began to produce a reduction, that there was somehow a delay in their effectiveness? This is unlikely.
If helmets saved lives then there would be a reduction in recorded injuries. The number of casualties is fairly constant year to year, in the absence of factors which cause change. Are you suggesting that, without obligatory helmets there would have been a sudden upwards jump in casualties? Seems unlikely.

felixcat wrote:

You miss the point twice here.

You might want to read your dated study a little closer. It shows a decline in hospital admissions due to head injuries post 1991-2 (ref. Figs 2,3, 4). It argues that the decline isn't proportional. But it doesn't (can't) control for the usage patterns pre/post helmet law. I'd argue high mileage cyclists wore helmets before the law so you would expect to see the decline in injuries be due to new (low mileage) helmet wearers.

I still maintain it is a crap study since the data is far from complete -- the narrow time frame; helmet use data is spurious; it doesn't differentiate between head injuries with helmets and without; doesn't quantify the extent of the injury; doesn't control for the riders; helmets sucked in the 1990's, etc.

I am still waiting for a quality, replicatable, study based on modern helmets with a large enough dataset (# of events) to support the conclusions. Unfortunately it would likely have to be an ER admission study (based on observed events) and that would only count head trauma. Cases like mine where the helmet was destroyed but I wasn't treated for a head injury would require the ER doctor to make a judgement call.

massspike wrote:

You might want to read your dated study a little closer. It shows a decline in hospital admissions due to head injuries post 1991-2 (ref. Figs 2,3, 4). It argues that the decline isn't proportional. But it doesn't (can't) control for the usage patterns pre/post helmet law. I'd argue high mileage cyclists wore helmets before the law so you would expect to see the decline in injuries be due to new (low mileage) helmet wearers.

I still maintain it is a crap study since the data is far from complete -- the narrow time frame; helmet use data is spurious; it doesn't differentiate between head injuries with helmets and without; doesn't quantify the extent of the injury; doesn't control for the riders; helmets sucked in the 1990's, etc.

I am still waiting for a quality, replicatable, study based on modern helmets with a large enough dataset (# of events) to support the conclusions. Unfortunately it would likely have to be an ER admission study (based on observed events) and that would only count head trauma. Cases like mine where the helmet was destroyed but I wasn't treated for a head injury would require the ER doctor to make a judgement call.

You suggest, with no evidence, that high mileage cyclists were more likely to wear helmets. If the new wearers tended to be lower mileage cyclists then you might equally guess that they would have had more accidents pre law, so putting them in hats would produce a bigger drop in casualties.
In fact the figures show a large drop in cycling numbers. The jump in wearing rates, the rate almost triples, is huge, and it needs some large distortion to explain how this fails to reduce casualty rates.
I have explained why cases like yours do not need to be counted : they are accounted for because head injury cases are counted, any reduction would be noted.
Helmet standards have not improved. If anything they have got worse as manufacturers have moved to national oe EU standards instead of the more rigorous Snell. The hats are sold on style and ventilation.
You argue for replicable studies. There would be ethical as well as practical problems in repeating impacts with and without foam. In any case this would not be a test in real world conditions. The only other test which satifies what seem to be your conditions is a case controlled study. These have problems in ensuring that the groups being studied are alike in all other respects than the variable being studied.
In medicine case controlled studies are less trusted than whole population studies. Which is what a compulsion law in a country provides.
I would argue that if legislators want to make me wear a helmet it is up to them to prove they work. The null hypothesis is that they don't

KoenM wrote:

" (The failure of widespread helmet use to have any effect on the rate of cyclist deaths and serious injuries shows they actually do bugger all.) " Dude wear a helmet they do help against crashes studies HAVE shown (i even have seen people crash on their heads with a helmet and didn't have an injury at all!), and if not it doesn't hurt u to wear one and it it's a good example! Why are u even accepted to post here if u can't set an example for cyclists, WEAR A HELMET! I only see old guys without a helmet in Belgium and i don't get it they should set the example!

I also have witnessed people fall wearing helmets (including my daughter) and I'm convinced that that fact helped in mitigating any injury. But there are plenty of people here who will simply not accept it. Most cyclists in Switzerland wear a helmet, but the anti-brigade choose to focus on NL because it supports their case. Perhaps NL is inherently safer, or perhaps there's more to this than is obvious. My advice is to not bother with the naysayers and just play a different risk game.

truffy wrote:

KoenM wrote:

" (The failure of widespread helmet use to have any effect on the rate of cyclist deaths and serious injuries shows they actually do bugger all.) " Dude wear a helmet they do help against crashes studies HAVE shown (i even have seen people crash on their heads with a helmet and didn't have an injury at all!), and if not it doesn't hurt u to wear one and it it's a good example! Why are u even accepted to post here if u can't set an example for cyclists, WEAR A HELMET! I only see old guys without a helmet in Belgium and i don't get it they should set the example!

I also have witnessed people fall wearing helmets (including my daughter) and I'm convinced that that fact helped in mitigating any injury. But there are plenty of people here who will simply not accept it. Most cyclists in Switzerland wear a helmet, but the anti-brigade choose to focus on NL because it supports their case. Perhaps NL is inherently safer, or perhaps there's more to this than is obvious. My advice is to not bother with the naysayers and just play a different risk game.

Switzerland?

The reason why NL is cited is because the vast majority of people using bikes are doing so as a normal means of transport. Relatively low speed, in control, utility cycling. In NL the majority of cyclists that end up in A&E with head injuries are wearing a helmet. This doesn't give them a head injury or make a head injury any worse or any better. It's simply a function of the fact that in NL people involved in cycle sport, higher speed more challenging cycling with a far higher chance of crashing are the ones wearing the helmets.

What a lot of us want in the UK is the NL model of seeing cycling as a useful means of transport that can also be made into a sport if you like that sort of thing.

Unfortunately at the moment there is a downside to the upside of increasing cycling rates in the UK. The downside is that the increased rates of cycling have been fuelled by the success of Team GB and that cycling is seen as predominantly a sport but that some "weirdos" also use as transport and did you know that some people who rise their bikes don't even care about cycle sport and prefer football??

The sporting connection is obvious in the helmet debate. It is mainly, but not exclusively, the younger, sportier, less experienced cyclists that favour helmets for their exciting weekend adventures when they go down a few steep hills, that are most vocal about helmets. I started riding in a club in 1973 and no-one wore a helmet when just riding about. So that would be training, club runs, time trials etc etc. I remember having to wear one because of BCF rules in various crits and on the track but did 7 seasons of Cyclo Cross without one. Look at some old cycling photos even of races and play spot the helmet.

But then back in the day cyclists often used their bikes for transport as well. I distinctly remember that quite a few of the older club members didn't own a car at all they just cycled everywhere.

I loved racing I still follow the sport and encouraged my son into the sport amongst others. But cycling will have taken off in the UK when people just use a bike wearing everyday clothes to trave a few miles around or between towns. It about 4x faster than walking even without breaking sweat. Much cheaper than taking the car, it's much easier to park, you hardly have traffic jams so the timings are more reliable and if you don't waste time waiting for a bus or being on a bus that goes the long way round to provide a wider service it's probably quicker than that as well.

The upside of the upside of the increase in cycling as a sport is that more people get out on the road and that makes them more experienced and considerate drivers. And some of them will get that cycling is good for just getting around and not requiring of special equipment.

As a serious question to the pro helmet compulsion/mandation brigade: What do you guys think will happen when it's realised how useless and unprotective cycling helmets are (the standards of protection have been going down), and then the lobby starts to be for more substantial ski type crash helmets? Are you still gonna be so keen?

oozaveared wrote:

Switzerland?

Yes, it's a very outdoorsy culture. A lot of families cycle. So what?

oozaveared wrote:

As a serious question to the pro helmet compulsion/mandation brigade: What do you guys think will happen when it's realised how useless and unprotective cycling helmets are (the standards of protection have been going down), and then the lobby starts to be for more substantial ski type crash helmets? Are you still gonna be so keen?

I don't necessarily think that helmets should be any more compulsory than the use of any safety gear, such as seat belts or hard hats.

I'm not sure that the value of helmets is overstated or understated. I've not fallen off a bike that involved head contact. But I've seen others who have. You can speculate until the cows come home as to whether the outcome would have been affected with/without a helmet. And it'll still make no difference.

But perhaps more responsibility needs to be taken by (or given to) those who ultimately make the choice.

KoenM wrote:

...WEAR A HELMET! I only see old guys without a helmet in Belgium and i don't get it they should set the example!

Try Netherlands, and pretty much nobody is wearing a helmet. Yet, injury rates among cyclists including head injuries, is much lower than here.

You need to learn about the design envelope for bicycle helmet protection before throwing out uninformed stuff like the above, try this for example:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence

You're young - you know no better. Some of us have been riding for decades. We didn't have helmets back then. We crashed there too and survived. The old guys you see without helmets have probably been riding for many many years and are better placed than you to judge.

No only ones are, are doctors, and helmets do save lives, i don't care if u believe me or not, but studies and pro cyclist do say it's true! I don't care if "studies" say there are more or less injuries with or without helmets, because no study only goes about head injury, if it would it would say there would be less HEAD injuries! Stop talking about injuries in general, helmets only help against head injuries.

Oh and btw old people can be wrong, old people once taught the earth was flat, or the sun revolved around the earth. There where more dead among pro-cyclist before helmets where used.

And about: "If helmets saved lives then there would be a reduction in recorded injuries. The number of casualties is fairly constant year to year, in the absence of factors which cause change."
U forget there are more people that ride bikes so in fact there is a reduction in %, if u even believe all those studies, because i don't anymore every day studies about all sort of things come out and gets turned around the day, week, month after. Oh and btw in Belgium seat belts let to less traffic injuries.

I don't get u guys though, it's so easy wearing one, even if for the chance of 1% saving your life u should do it, everyone should! It doesn't hurt wearing one and u don't fall more if u wear one so why wouldn't u, i really, really don't get it! WEAR A HELMET! Ow and i'm going to stop reading the comments because no one ever said here that it hurts more if u wear one! Be a smart-ass, fall on your head and get seriously injured, paralyzed, or worse, it's your life but it's dumb not to use one even if for the chance to save u! U don't look better r look more manly if u don't wear one u just look more like an idiot!

Your comments are so off the wall I don't feel the need to comment on them in detail.
They amount to, " I don't want to believe that helmets don't work so I won't.
Any evidence that shows they don't must be nonsense, but I don't need to prove this."
Your ideas about why I and others dislike helmets are just that, your ideas, and have no relation to what I think.
I appreciate that changing your ideas is painful. People often die rather than change their mind. However, I have known people change their beliefs about helmets and seat belts. They are often scientists who are trained in assessing evidence and have an ethic of basing their beliefs on that evidence. This does require that you read the studies though.

fenix wrote:

You're young - you know no better. Some of us have been riding for decades. We didn't have helmets back then. We crashed there too and survived. The old guys you see without helmets have probably been riding for many many years and are better placed than you to judge.

Only takes one hit.... Dead. Your choice helmet no helmet I could not careless, if you crash and die (hopefully not) it's no skin off my nose. So feel free. However smoking kills fact, people live to 100 who smoke.... And your point is about helmets?

Guy Martin crashed his TT bike doing 177mph lived... My mate crashed at 155mph dead, it all depends on the crash, most people who don't wear helmets have either never crashed or never hit their head during one.... If Half a sliced melon is good enough for the Merckx it's good enough for me.

Me, I actually like them, the sleek ones obviously.

Ref the post.. I have one, great peice of kit, but I have no hair so for me it's great during the coldest days, a -15 ride last year it was perfect, head was nice and toasty.