Taken from Behind

Superfinlay

No lasting physical damage, but I had a nasty fright on the way home from work last night. Cycling through Bucksburn in Aberdeen (just outside the Police Station) the wing mirror of a passing lorry made direct contact with the back of my head and knocked me off my bike. Luckily I was thrown clear of the main flow of traffic and the cars turning off onto the slip-road I was lying managed to stop in time. A witness 50-yards up the road said he heard the crack. An ambulance took me to A&E to get me checked for any brain injury and to patch up some minor road rash. The lorry driver has been charged with "reckless driving", whatever that means. I'm quite sore today but can only think of how lightly I came away from the incident. After 20-years of cycling, I am guilty of wearing a helmet on a regular basis for only the last year, for which I am now feeling rather selfish and very stupid.

Helmets may not protect us from major collisions but they do, without any doubt in my mind now serve a purpose (the full thickness crack in the occipital section of mine is surely testimony). It's unfortunate that it took a scare for me to realise this. I know many of you do wear helmets; many have tormented me over the years enough. But some of you don't. I don't want to nag - it doesn't work, just make you think about it.

I'm now considering my various options and whether I feel that the benefits of commuting to and from work on my bike is still worth the risks involved. A one in 20-year event may sound like a low probability, but in reality, I'm not sure that it's low enough. The main thing is that I still have options to consider.

Think about dusting that helmet off,

Alex

HJ1976

Thank god you have started to wear a helmet! Imagine if you hadn't, or if you had rolled the other way!
Are you going to make a claim against him at least for the helmet?

Superfinlay

I know, I know HJ1976, I've gone through all the potential what if's and yes the driver will be getting a bill for some cycling equipment/repairs; I guess we're all getting off lightly this time.

ash68

Good to hear your ok.As you say wearing a helmet probably saved you from worse injuries, possibly even saved your life. I wear a helmet also. 18 months ago a cat ran across the road into my back wheel.This sent me over the handlebars and landed on the back of my head,smashing my helmet. I managed to escape with cuts, bruises and a bloody nose.But for my helmet it would have been alot worse. Just shows they can and do help in some circumstances.Like HJ1976 says get that claim in for everything you can possibly claim for; helmet, injuries,any damage to bike, loss of earnings if you need time off work etc. Chances are he,ll get off with a small fine and a couple of points on his licence.That's British justice for you!Hope this event doesn't put you off commuting by bike,take it easy and get that insurance claim in against that idiot.

ddraver

It took me cracking the windscreen of a mini with my head to make me wear a seat belt

stern finger wag in your direction

cntl

>> I am guilty of wearing a helmet on a regular basis for only the last year

HELMETS SAVE LIVES (AND/OR PREVENT BRAIN INJURY)

>>Helmets may not protect us from major collisions

No. Helmets protect you in all types of collisions. Whatever the type of damage, it will be always smaller with a helmet than without.

Simple test. Take a hammer. Bang yourself really hard on the head. Now put a good helmet on. Do the same. Hahahaha... actually, it will only work in reverse order...LOL

BentMikey

Glad you're OK Alex. Sue the bugger.

I'm still not going to wear a helmet, because the evidence for them working for serious head injuries, on average, is not there. www.cyclehelmets.org is a worthwhile read.

cntl

I forgot: YOU HAVE TO FILE A CIVIL LAW SUIT for compensation. Collect all the evidence concerning the accident and injuries. If you can not afford it, I think Bennetts handles compensation claims. I got a leaflet from them, which went soemthing like: "Have you been in a bike accident that was not your fault? Contact us for compensation claims" or something like that. Also, most solitors that specialize in compensation claims will take your case for free (simply because you can not lose).

YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE DRIVER AND/OR THE COMPANY TO COURT. I am sorry, but settling JUST for the physical damage to the equipment is ridiculous.

BentMikey

I'd agree with your last post, CNTL. It's not for Alex to get the money, but rather to exact a financial penalty on the driver and the company. There's no better way to educate them against bad driving like this, IMO.

cntl

>>It's not for Alex to get the money, but rather to exact a financial penalty on the driver
>>and the company. There's no better way to educate them against bad driving like this,
>>IMO.

Oh, yes, you are right BentMikey. This accident made me a bit upset and the reason I suggested taking the driver or company to court is exactly like what you have suggested: to exact financial penalty on the driver and the company, so that they pay for their mistake (as I paid for mine :oops: ), and hopefully learn from that. I didn't have personal financial benefit in my mind at all and I should have made myself clear about that! :!:

Paulie W

I cannot for the life of me understand those who dont wear helmets whatever some statistics suggest. My own experience - not as extensive as others here but 15 years of regular commuting and MTBing - and those of friends and acquaintances weighs far more with me than any number of statistics: I have had and have seen plenty of accidents which were much worse because no helmet was worn or vice versa. A failry close friend fractured her skull in a fairly low speed crash after colliding head first with a kerb. I've jumped up unscathed after much more serious looking crashes involving head on collisions with trees and rocks whilst wearing a helmet. I know this is anecdotal - and no doubt others could produce contrasting examples - but I have never personally come across an accident where wearing a helmet lead to greater injury (although I understand but struggle to accept the arguments as to why it might).

misterben

BentMikey wrote:

I'm still not going to wear a helmet, because the evidence for them working for serious head injuries, on average, is not there. www.cyclehelmets.org is a worthwhile read.

I agree that a helmet is not going to help you if you get your head run over by a bus, but surely they're beneficial for all the other minor knocks that you could get?

BentMikey

CNTL, sorry, yes, I had assumed that was what you meant too!

PaulieW, the plural of anecdote is not data. I was once also a very pro helmet person, but the weight of evidence is that they do little for safety or public health.

Regardless of whether helmets do or don't work, they are a safety red herring:
Firstly, cycling isn't nearly dangerous enough to need a helmet, going by how most people drive and walk without wearing one. Secondly, you can get a much better safety improvement in your cycling by spending time on cyclecraft, rather than protective gear.

Paulie W

I personally think the 'scientific' data is the red herring here - I can provide plenty of explicit examples of how a helmet has helped someone's health and safety; data telling me that increased helmet wearing has led to an increase rather than a decrease in serious injury means what exactly? That people wearing helmets take more risks? That drivers treat helmet wearers with less care? That increased rotation speed caused by helmet wearing can lead to greater injury? That those who wear helmets are likely to be less able cyclists?

Also, I really dont see how 'time' spent on wearing a helmet etc is 'time' not spent on cyclecraft.

BentMikey

The point is that everyone gets their knickers in a twist about helmets, and yet even if they do work to the best the pro-helmeteers are hoping, they are a very minor contribution towards safety. In H&S terms I believe that protective gear is the last measure to consider putting in place, not the first one. We should spend our efforts not on helmet debates but instead on cyclecraft and riding within our limits. For example, magnatom's videos are amazing. This is where we can see cyclecraft in action and learn from each other and each other's mistakes.

And I'm pretty sure no-one can show anecdotal examples where a helmet indisputably helped prevent a serious head injury. Not without accelerometer data, expert involvement, etc. Minor injuries, certainly, but not brain damage inducing stuff.

Gazzaputt

I think comparing cycling to walking and driving is ill conceived.

Walking at most your travelling at around 3-5mph so an head injury without the involvement of a third party should be minimal although there are freak cases.

Driving although at speed you are encased and also have safety features such airbags and seat restraints. Therefore head injurywithin an urban speed limit should again be minimal.

Cycling at say an average of 15mph and coming off can result in serious injury if the head makes contact with a hard surface. A helmet will help minimise an injury.

whome

I think you are missing the point - the data shows that cycling is as safe as walking and driving (*) despite being faster than walking or less cacooned than driving.

* - I'm not sure it was quite as safe as driving, the figures I saw. But ...

So wear a helmet if it makes you feel better, but be aware of the limitations and don't ever try to claim "a helmet saved my life", since that is complete guesswork.

hamboman

I can appreciate why people don't wear helmets. These are the reasons:

The human mind is very good at calculating levels of risk and responding accordingly. You will therefore subconsciously ride more recklessly when you feel you are better protected. This has been shown time and time again in psychological studies - for example, when seatbelts were introduced in the US, fatalities did not actually decrease!

This has also been shown to have an adverse effect on other road users (as have cycle lanes tacked onto the sides of roads). Drivers may subconsciously think the helmet-wearer is better protected and this may be reflected in his driving.

When helmets were made compulsory in Australia, fatalities did not reduce.

BentMikey

Gazzaputt wrote:

A helmet will help minimise an injury.

This is the bit we don't agree on. How do you know helmets *WILL* minimise injury? It might seem like common sense, but life is often more complicated, and the evidence doesn't back up your view, at least for serious head injuries.

Paulie W

So let me ask the various posters why do you choose not to wear a helmet?

Because you believe that wearing a helmet will increase your own risk taking and make other road users treat you more carelessly thus offsetting any possible safety benefits of a helmet?

Or because here is no proof that wearing a helmet makes any difference anyway?

If the former then I would suggest that you can actually control your own behaviour and through the mighty cyclecraft you can also control the behaviour of others to some extent.

If the latter, Pascal has a theorem about helmet wearing: you might as well wear one because if they do have a safety benefit well youve made the right decision and if they dont, well what have you lost - maybe your hair is a bit sweaty and the more aestheticallly minded of you might have lost a little dignity!

BentMikey

Good post Paulie, with some well argued points there!

To address your first point - unfortunately there's an element of risk compensation that makes it very hard to avoid doing to some extent. I know I'm guilty of risk compensation with the recumbent - because I can brake so much harder than on my upright normal bike, I end up going faster and braking later, which negates the extra safety margin. IIRC risk compensation is an instinctual and subconcious strategy, making it hard to avoid doing. One study found that people wearing helmets are 7 times more likely to hit their heads than people not wearing helmets.

On the second, here are two possible scenarios. One is that helmets have little or no effect on crashes, not just on average, but in most crashes. The other, and I think more likely, is that helmets do help some of the time, but these positive crashes are balanced up by instances where they make the injuries worse. Stuff like causing rotational brain damage (the most serious kind), neck and spinal cord damage, etc. That's enough to make me abandon the helmet right there.

Here's why I don't wear a helmet when cycling:
* I know that on average, it's not going to help protect me against serious head injuries, so why bother? OTOH I would expect it to help against bumps, grazes, and other minor injuries, but since I don't fall off my bike very often, this is not a major worry for me.
* When cycling isn't very dangerous at all, why bother to wear a helmet? I might as well ask you why you don't wear one when walking to the shops, because your risk of serious head injury is similar for that activity.
* I don't like the way car drivers seem to pass much closer when I'm wearing a helmet, and I would point out that I'd seen and agreed with anecdotal tales of this on URC long before that study came out.
* It's hot and uncomfortable, I much prefer to be wearing a cap or go bareheaded.

whome

Far, far more comfortable without one - why on earth would you wear one if you weren't scared into it.

It should be perfectly normal to cycle without any special gear.

The danger of a compulsory law.

Mikey Mouse

whome wrote:

Far, far more comfortable without one - why on earth would you wear one if you weren't scared into it.

It should be perfectly normal to cycle without any special gear.


The danger of a compulsory law.

Im perfectly happy to cycle with a helmet on.End of story.
If I think it is a risk wearing a helmet then I wont wear one.I have had nothing to show me it is dodgy.People should be left to make their own decisions if they dont want to wear a helmet then so be it.

To the author of this thread so sorry what happened to you.

I just take it there are so many inconsiderate idiots out there.

cntl

Ok. Here's what Cyclecraft has to say about helmets. It's a bit long list of resaerch, so I chose a few illustrations:

(1) Dorsch et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol 19:3 pp183-90, 1987. Predicts 90% saving in fatalities through use of hard-shell helmets.

(2) Helmet protection from head injuries among recreational bicyclists *
Wasserman et al. American Journal of Sports Medicine Vol 18:1 pp 96-7, 1990.

Predicts helmets would reduce concussions by 29%, skull fractures by 82%.

(3) A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets
Thompson RS, Rivara, Thompson DC. The New England Journal of Medicine Vol 320:21 pp1361-7, 1989.

A study conducted at five hospitals in Seattle between December 1986 and December 1987 of cyclists admitted to an emergency room. Of 776 cyclists admitted, 269 had head injuries. 235 of these, and 433 of the 507 cyclists who were admitted without head injuries, completed a questionnaire. The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%. [j264]


(4) Land transport fatal accident report *
Land Safety Transport Authority, New Zealand. 3 reports: 1989, 1990, 1991.
Referenced from: The cost-effectiveness of compulsory bicycle helmets in New Zealand.

Of 42 cyclists over 3 years not wearing helmets who were killed (all causes, not just head injuries), 6 may have survived if they had been wearing a helmet. For 21 of the cyclists a helmet would probably have made no difference. (PLEASE NOTE: ALL CAUSES, NOT JUST HEAD INJURIES)

(5) A prospective analysis of injury severity among helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles *
Spaite et al. Journal of Trauma Vol 31:11 pp1510-6, 1991.

Helmet non-use in this study is strongly associated with severe injuries. However, this is true even when cyclists without major head injuries are analysed as a group. The implication is that people who do not use helmets tend to be in higher impact collisions that helmet users, since the injuries suffered in body areas other than the head also tend to be more severe.

(6)The effectiveness of bicycle helmets: a review
Henderson. Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, 1995.

Bicycle helmets substantially reduce risk of head injury in a crash. Cyclists deaths in Australia have fallen by one half in ten years, most in the years since 1989 (mandatory helmet laws were introduced 1990 to 1992). In Victoria head injuries decreased 48% and 70% in two years after law. In Queensland cyclist head injuries fell by more than half following the law, whilst other bicycle-related injuries remained the same. Old-style (not Standards approved) helmets ineffective. All helmets less effective if wrongly placed or without straps tightened. [j997]

(7) Circumstances and severity of bicycle injuries
Thompson DC, Rivara, Thompson RS. 1996
Full paper available on-line

Summary report of the Harborview Helmet Studies.
Study at 7 Seattle hospitals involving 3,390 cyclists who were injured or died 1992-4. Individuals with head or brain injuries compared to those involved in crashes but who did not suffere such injuries. 50.6% had worn helmets at time of crash. Concluded that helmets decrease risk of head injury by 69%, brain injury by 65% and severe brain injury by 74%. Helmets work equally well for all age groups, and in crashes with and without motor vehicles (which are most important risk factor for serious injury). Substantial protection provided against lacerations and fractures to upper and mid-face, but not to lower face. Hard shell helmets may offer greatest protection against severe brain injury. [j977]





There are a few references to articles claiming limited safety benefits of helmets, but they are outnumbered by the "pro-helmet" research. A meta-analysis (that is, analysis of a number of different studies:

Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis
Attewell, Glase & McFadden, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2001 pp 345-352

Analysis of peer-reviewed studies which include individual injury and helmet use data, published 1987-98. Overall risk reduction 45% for head injury, 33% for brain injury, 27% for facial injury, 29% for fatal injury. Some evidence of increased neck injury. Authors plead for greater acceptance of helmet use.

nicklouse

interesting to read the commuters thoughts on helmets.

BentMikey

If you take a look at www.cyclehelmets.org you'll see a little more revealing information on those studies, particularly Thompson/Rivara.

cntl

>>If you take a look at www.cyclehelmets.org you'll see a little more revealing
>>information on those studies, particularly Thompson/Rivara.

***EDIT*** : Actually, the article your reference is their response to yet another study. Let me read through it CAREfully

BentMikey

Come on CNTL, don't be so disingenuous. At least post the link to the analysis of the study:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

"Those who have taken the trouble to analyse the paper in detail, however, have found it to be seriously flawed and its conclusions untenable. Moreover, by making different - but no less valid - assumptions, the conclusions change radically."

"As discussed above, it seems more likely that the 4,501 cyclists actually observed riding around Seattle were more typical of the norm than the 'community control' group, leading to the conclusion that helmets make no significant difference. This is also the conclusion from whole-population data around the world."

"The study compares groups of cyclists who chose to wear helmets with those who did not. Many variables, such as the reasons for wearing a helmet and attitudes to risk, were not controlled for by the researchers and may have influenced the results."

"The authors appear to have a deep personal commitment to the wearing of cycle helmets, and have also written outspoken campaigning articles in, for example, the British Medical Journal pressing strongly for helmet legislation, claiming that “helmets reduced the risk by 63-88% for head, brain, and severe brain injury among cyclists of all ages.”"

cntl

I am sorry BentMikey. I glanced throught the paper and because normally an abstract designates well... an abstract or summary of the full article, I took it for what it looked like. My apology. Let me read through that article. Interestingly, there seems to be many more studies supporting the benefits of helmets thant vice versa, including meta-analyses, at list on the Cyclecraft list (I haven't yet had a full read of the cyclehelmet.org list).

cntl

In order to comment on the original article (the one being criticized) I wound need to first read the full version, i.e. with the Methods, Results and the Discussion sections, a standard scientific convention allowing others to either replicate or reject the results. The article you cited is NOT a study. It is just a response to a study, although published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I agree that not all may be what it seems, but the same goes about the "no benefit" arguments. To give you an example, let's use this article written by a medical doctor who attended to many cycle accident victims:

"Pedestrians and car occupants are in fact more likely to suffer head injuries from road accidents than cyclists. In the US, 34% of fatal head injuries happen to people in cars. Some 7% are pedestrians, and only 1% cycle riders. Yet no-one seriously suggests that helmets are worn by anyone other than cyclists and motorcyclists."

Of course, once adjusted for the numebr of cars on the road versus the numbers of bikes, and adjusted for the number or accidents in both conditions, the percentages might go the other way?

cntl

Actually, the whole methodology discussed earlier seems to be a bit misguided, to say the least, specifically the selection of control and experimental conditions. I would think that a better desing would involve a control condition (subjects no wearing helmets) and experimental conditions (subjects wearing helmets), matched as closely as possible for trauma spacificity (e.g. location of impact , estimated magnitude of impact, etc.). Ultimately this is what matters for the analysis, not whether someone is from middle class, the attidute to risk they have or whatnot. Such variables do not constitute either dependent or confounding variables in this context.