Helmets - yes or no?

BentMikey

You made a statement that was wrong and made you appear very ignorant IMO. You're now jumping to conclusions about what I believe, which is also wrong.

If you want to recover any sort of believability, post on here the assumptions and your calculations to show the actual effects given the speeds you mentioned.

Big n Daft

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=489

Loads of info, studies and yet more statistics that point to a "helmets are safer" conclusion.

Still an un-winnable argument though.

BentMikey

I see they use, amongst others, the Thompson Rivara Thompson study, which has been discredited IIRC.

redddraggon

I believe and so do the majority than wearing a helmet is safer than not. 80 v 20, I don't need to recover any believability.

There will always be papers, pro-helmet and anti-helmet. You need to be in the mind of who's writing the paper. People will only publish what they beleive, and people will produce a paper contradicting it.

I don't where a helmet because cycling is dangerous, I've only ever cut my knees and elbows up, I just do it out of habit, but if my head hit the tarmac I'll better off wearing it.

Derivations and proofs will prove me right, because I can make it prove me right, what's the point in that? As I said about papers, scientists don't publish what they think is wrong. I could equally do a derivation that would prove me wrong.

You keep coming back to my speed statement, it wasn't right, I even admited in that in the original post, but the foam does absorb some of the impact.

As the helmet hits the surface, it will deform, giving a higher surface area which asorb more of the impact, until the foam is completely densified, then the helmet will begin to deform elastically asorbing energy, when the localised area of the plastic deformation reaches its max area tearing will happen where the stress is the highest, again absorbing energy. If I had my textbooks in front of me I could go into even more detail. It's pretty obvious to me without all the science that the helmet absorbs so of the impact. You could bring in different situation, eg a neck injury, but thats a different situation.

Big n Daft

Does it follow that ALL of the info is useless then Mikey?

How about this little nugget?

However, cyclists can take precautions to protect themselves on the road and today's cycle helmets are safe and look good increase their chances of survival in a crash, and one of the simplest steps is to wear a cycle helmet. A 2002 study found that more than 100,000 cycling head injuries could have been prevented in 1997 in the USA if all cyclists had been wearing helmets.[2]

And the source:

[2] Injury Prevention Vol 8(1) ‘State Level Estimates of the Incidence and Economic Burden of Head Injuries Stemming from Non-Universal Use of Bicycle Helmets’ (J Schulman et al, 2002)

There is evidence that supports both sides. This whole thread is based on choice and opinion, perhaps it's best left to that, rather than both sides saying I'm right and your all wrong?

cupofteacp

"But the issue of helmets is a serious problem. All insurance contracts require policyholders to "take reasonable care", and insurers are increasingly using this clause to reject any claim involving incidents where a cyclist is not wearing a helmet"

Carlisle Labour MP Eric Martlew
"However, Martlew feels as passionately about the need for compulsion as some cyclists, who he calls "lunatics in lycra", are vehemently against. "

cupofteacp

"That analogy doesn't work. Why don't you wear a helmet when walking, because you're at just as much risk of injury or death as when cycling. "
When walking you're not in close proximity to cars, also you're travelling slower. Thats why you don't need a helmet.


"Helmets do increase your risk of injury, albeit very slightly, and there's real evidence to prove it. Quite unlike on the red light jumping debate."
Where's the evidence? So far there has been no proof. Other countries have passed laws forcing the wearing of helmets because they belive in it.
As I've said before if you check the figures for deaths in London between 1999 and 2005 more people were killed at Junctions than those RLJing. I agree the data has not been correctly recorded in sufficent detail. but sitting at lights is more dangerous than crossing

Bent I don't think anything anyone says will get you to change your mind. So keep doing what your doing.

Bored

jam1ec

BentMikey wrote:

jam1ec wrote:

I have been knocked off by cars and saved by my helmet twice. I think what makes cycling different than walking in this context is that you do it in closer proximity to cars.

I doubt that the helmet saved your life. Read here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Cycling and walking aren't that different in terms of the number of deaths and serious injuries. That means a helmet, assuming it even works, would likely be equally effective for walking as it would be for cycling. You don't wear a helmet to walk anywhere, so why wear one for cycling which has a very similar risk level?

Oh, and nearly all helmets sold come with a disclaimer that they are not designed to protect you against impacts involving motor vehicles.

You should read others posts more carefully if you want the side you've taken of this debate to come across with credibility. You seem to be jumping to conclusions. I did not say it saved my life, I doubt that it did. I am fairly sure it saved my injuries from being worse, as in one case there was a sharp stone wedged into the helmet pointing towards my head. It may not have killed me or fractured my skull but i'm sure there would have been some kind of cut.

The number of deaths and serious injuries from cycling and walking, is that total or per cyclist/per walker? I'd need to know that to know if they are similar risk levels, it seems strange that by giving someone a machine which allows them to travel faster and puts them closer to cars does not effect the risk?

dondare

Pedestrians have more accidents per person per mile than cyclists. This equates to fewer accidents per journey, because pedestrians don't travel as far.
Footpaths keep pedestrians seperated from traffic but are not continuous. You can't walk anywhere without soon having to cross a road, then a bit further along another, then another and so on. Pedestrians get killed and injured in large numbers crossing roads but there's never any suggestion that they should wear helmets to do so. Crossing a road on foot is much more dangerous than cycling along the same road on a bike.
(Also, 3200 peds get seriously injured each year on the footpath, and a dozen or so killed, in accidents involving motor-vehicles.)

The red light thing is a different matter altogether. I have seen umteen gazillion cyclists jump the lights and none of them would have been in the slightest danger if they'd have waited.

slickongreens

My sister-in-law is a trauma consultant in a UK hospital. Her advice is simple: wear a helmet. If you fall off your bike and your head hits the ground a correctly fitted helmet will stop the skin splitting around the skull, she says. It will likely mean the avoidance of stitches or at least a reduced number, saving both her and you time in casualty / A&E.

It may even save you a graze or two.

It won't save you in a head-on with an HGV. But it might mean an open casket is still a runner...

dondare

cupofteacp wrote:

"But the issue of helmets is a serious problem. All insurance contracts require policyholders to "take reasonable care", and insurers are increasingly using this clause to reject any claim involving incidents where a cyclist is not wearing a helmet"

Carlisle Labour MP Eric Martlew
"However, Martlew feels as passionately about the need for compulsion as some cyclists, who he calls "lunatics in lycra", are vehemently against. "

These are perfect examples of why no cyclist should ever argue that helmets should be worn.

mea00csf

"The movement of a helmet or the irritation to the head that many people experience might also affect balance or concentration at a crucial moment."

From the much loved and revered cyclehelmets.org. Without a helmet i most definetly cycle like a prat. Yep i said without. Having ridden with a helmet since i can remember the feeling of not having a helmet definetly puts me off, makes hesitant and nervous. With a helmet i'm confident, assertive and fluid which i think makes me a better cyclist

Looking at sports such as skiing and snowboarding, helmets are starting to become the norm, from being hardly seen on the slopes before. This i believe is mostly due to the younger kids wearing helmets, particularly during lessons where in many places it is compulsory. This makes it the norm for them and their choice without even thinking about. They don't tend to consider skiing and snowboarding are super dangerous just because of this. As such i don't think the risk taking increases wearing a helmet for people who grow up with the mindset that wearing helmets is normal as it really is "just what you do, isn't it?!" The risk taking argument doesn't apply to these people in just the same way that i don't think the risk taking argument applies to me while cycling with a helmet

The difference is the group who grow up with wearing a helmet being the norm feel normal wearing a helmet and "at risk" and nervous without.

The group who don't usually wear a helmet feel normal without a helmet and invincible with.

Which actually almost makes this into a generational argument

Doom

BentMikey wrote:

dondare wrote:

You're better off avoiding the impact.

Has "risk compensation" reared its helmeted head yet?

Several times I think. At least one person has tried to deny it exists, LOL!

I never denied its existence but rather stated that wearing a helmet doesnt make ME suddenly take more risks.

As I said its a personal preference thing. I couldnt care if you do or dont choose to wear a helmet as its your choice.

paulym31

I don't know much about the science, but I do know that I headplanted from about 12 feet a couple of weeks back and walked away (after I came round) with nothing more than whiplash, a mild concussion and lots of bruising.
I'm convinced that without the helmet I'd have wound up getting a ride in a helicopter, instead I rode another 10 miles.

An interesting note on the generational debate is that when I went back to work (I'm a Primary teacher) I did a straw poll with the kids in my school asking who had a helmet, and who wore one regularly. Around two thirds of the children who owned helmets don't wear them, and if there's even a chance that doing so could make minor injuries out of potentially major ones then I'm all for it.

Paul

freebs

Been following this thread since the start (for some reason!).

If those who believe that wearing a helmet makes drivers more dangerous in some way, are helmets safer to wear at night?!

Lets see the stats on that.

freebs

Also, surely cycling is dangerous?

I choose to do it because I enjoy it, I accept the risks. The fact this thread exists would tend to support the fact dangers are involved.

If you can't face the prospect of injury, stay in and watch the tv.

Wheelie82

Over the years I have came of my bike and cracked two eating tarmac, if that had been my head would have been a lot worse wear mine all the time. They do't look as stupid these days should become law.

wheelie 82

richardast

I'm all in favour of personal choice and choose to wear a helmet.
The idea that not wearing one would make me more careful sounds like a similar argument to the one for taking seatbelts and airbags out of cars. Wouldn't fancy that either.

Don't wish to be too dismissive, but that cyclehelmets website looks to me like evidence that you can find proof of anything on the internet if you look hard enough.

BentMikey

freebs wrote:

Also, surely cycling is dangerous?

I choose to do it because I enjoy it, I accept the risks. The fact this thread exists would tend to support the fact dangers are involved.

If you can't face the prospect of injury, stay in and watch the tv.

Cycling is about as dangerous as walking, so the right answer would be that it's not very dangerous or daring at all, it's just a normal everyday activity with normal everyday risks. It's certainly much less dangerous than riding a motorcycle, for example.

BentMikey

richardast wrote:

Don't wish to be too dismissive, but that cyclehelmets website looks to me like evidence that you can find proof of anything on the internet if you look hard enough.

Don't believe that - some of the people behind that are helmet wearers. It's actually relatively unbiased, and doesn't hide any of the pro-helmet studies, for example.

I think most of the problem here is that the pro-helmet folks are horrified by the evidence showing helmets don't work, and understandably don't want to believe it. I know, because I used to think the same way, and it took a few years before the evidence out there convinced me. This was before the cyclehelmets.org website was put up, by the way.

BentMikey

Doom wrote:

I never denied its existence but rather stated that wearing a helmet doesnt make ME suddenly take more risks.

Yes, but you probably wouldn't ride your bike without a helmet, ergo you are experiencing risk compensation. You're wearing safety gear in order to undertake an activity that you perceive as too risky to undertake regularly without safety gear.

BentMikey

cupofteacp wrote:

"But the issue of helmets is a serious problem. All insurance contracts require policyholders to "take reasonable care", and insurers are increasingly using this clause to reject any claim involving incidents where a cyclist is not wearing a helmet"

Carlisle Labour MP Eric Martlew
"However, Martlew feels as passionately about the need for compulsion as some cyclists, who he calls "lunatics in lycra", are vehemently against. "

Yes, but Martlew is a vehement prohelmeteer, and your idea that insurance companies claim contributory negligence is rubbish. It's never been successful and to my knowledge insurance companies don't try this any more with cycle helmets.

Again, can you provide a specific case to show otherwise? No.

BentMikey

jam1ec wrote:

You should read others posts more carefully if you want the side you've taken of this debate to come across with credibility. You seem to be jumping to conclusions. I did not say it saved my life, I doubt that it did. I am fairly sure it saved my injuries from being worse, as in one case there was a sharp stone wedged into the helmet pointing towards my head. It may not have killed me or fractured my skull but i'm sure there would have been some kind of cut.

The number of deaths and serious injuries from cycling and walking, is that total or per cyclist/per walker? I'd need to know that to know if they are similar risk levels, it seems strange that by giving someone a machine which allows them to travel faster and puts them closer to cars does not effect the risk?

OK, sorry, my misinterpretation. I thought you said the helmet saved your life, which I doubted. If you're just saying it saved you from cuts and grazes, I'd completely agree with you. I don't believe there's any debate about helmets being able to protect against some minor injuries.

On your second point, this relates to no. of people killed per billion km of walking/cycling, so is a very comparable risk. If you compare cycling and walking per km travelled, then cycling is slightly safer, but if you compare via hours of exposure, then walking is slighly safer. Cycling really is a normal activity compared to everyday things in risk terms, and that's what I found particularly reassuring once I realised just how bad cycle helmets are.

jam1ec

BentMikey wrote:

On your second point, this relates to no. of people killed per billion km of walking/cycling, so is a very comparable risk. If you compare cycling and walking per km travelled, then cycling is slightly safer, but if you compare via hours of exposure, then walking is slighly safer. Cycling really is a normal activity compared to everyday things in risk terms, and that's what I found particularly reassuring once I realised just how bad cycle helmets are.

I had missed the increased risk for pedestrians as they cross the road perpedicular to the flow of traffic so can see the risks being comparable.

I have also had a look at the cyclemelmets website and while the analysis of a helmets large impact capabilities are i'm sure sound, i have more trouble with anti helmet argument with regards to reducing awareness and acting as a distraction. I thought about this as i rode home last night and with a correctly fitting helmet on. I struggle see how if you chose the correct helmet it impedes in any way, maybe some people have strange shaped heads!

Lastly concerning how it changes your attitude/cycling style i guess i am so used to helmets that i feel normal and not safer with one. I think this comes from wearing one mountain biking rather than feeling at too much danger on the road without one.

My conclusion is wear one if you want but you don't have to. I feel now havng read a lot more facts that even if it protects me from more minor injuries then that is enough. That is after all why i wear gloves when road cycling, to protect my hands from cuts and grazes, not to stop me breaking my wrist. Advising others that wearing a helmet is not beneficial is, in my opinion, irresponsible though.

Doom

BentMikey wrote:

You're wearing safety gear in order to undertake an activity that you perceive as too risky to undertake regularly without safety gear.

I don't percieve cycling as an activity to be dangerous but I do believe there are multiple factors that are outside of my control including road conditions, vehicles whose presence elevate the level of risk associated with the activity. So as long as I dont cycle on a stationary bike in a protective bubble I will make a choice available to me that mitigates or minimises some of the risks such as choosing quieter roads where possible as well as wearing a helmet when I choose or deem it necessary.

cupofteacp

Bent what sort of bike do you commute on?

snooks

BentMikey wrote:

Cycling is about as dangerous as walking, so the right answer would be that it's not very dangerous or daring at all, it's just a normal everyday activity with normal everyday risks. It's certainly much less dangerous than riding a motorcycle, for example.

I think dangerours is the wrong word, that implies "danger" which is the posibility of injury or death, which there is admittedly, but I think we've be conditioned to see the word more along the lines of "do this and you die" : "Danger 40,000 Volts" for example

Personally I'd say there was more risk involved in cycling than walking - I haven't fallen over walking in the counrtyside, but I've come off my bike, also I don't walk in the road with the cars, I walk on the pavement. There is a slight risk, but it's still not enough to worry me...As someone said above...my head, my choice
.

mailmannz

researchers in New Zealand have concluded that the law has reduced cyclist head injuries significantly. The large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of the compulsory helmet wearing law reduced head injuries by between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor vehicle crashes, found the research, which looked at hospitalisations for head injuries among cyclists.[6]

In a published letter to the New Zealand Cycling Advocates Network newsletter, John Wren, a senior analyist from Safekids, a service of the Starship Children's Hospital in New Zealand, discussed public reaction to the legislation and the reasons why it was so important to introduce it. In the letter he refers to research done that shows helmet wearing reduces the risk of sustaining head and brain injuries for cyclists of all ages by 63 - 88%.[7] - [9] Click here to read the full version of the letter.

Well, blow me down and here I thought that anti-helmet propoganda site said helmets dont do bugger all Mikey?

Mailman

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

In fact those that I tell I cycle all pretty much say the same thing "innit dangerous with all those cars on the street?".

Obv!!! I beleive it's helmets that caused that perception of danger.

Thats right love, your perception is that helmets makes people think cycling is dangerous when the reality of the situation is that people are preoccupied with the perception that its all those nasty cars on the road, not helmets that makes our beloved sport dangerous.

Cycling is actually about as safe as walking, so it is only a perception.

stats, linky or something to back yourself up please because Im pretty sure peds are probably much safer off as their "infrastructure" is a hell of a lot more developed and extensive than that provided for cyclists.

Mailman

BentMikey

Doom wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

You're wearing safety gear in order to undertake an activity that you perceive as too risky to undertake regularly without safety gear.

I don't percieve cycling as an activity to be dangerous but I do believe there are multiple factors that are outside of my control including road conditions, vehicles whose presence elevate the level of risk associated with the activity. So as long as I dont cycle on a stationary bike in a protective bubble I will make a choice available to me that mitigates or minimises some of the risks such as choosing quieter roads where possible as well as wearing a helmet when I choose or deem it necessary.

Ergo you are clearly demonstrating risk compensation. It's not a bad thing, it's common to all humans.