Helmets - yes or no?
Comments
-
Cntl, the problem is that some control studies show a purported benefit from helmets, yet none of the population level studies do. Where do these benefits disappear to when the studies enlarge to look at thousands and thousands of examples? In fact there is a case to be made that there's a net increase in risk from wearing a helmet, albeit slight.
There are many examples of bad science in the case control studies, with all sorts of wrong assumptions being made. One is that using the same data and methodology as the original researchers in one study proved that helmets also protect against 75% of leg injuries. No really, I'm not kidding!!!! There are just too many other examples along these lines to make for believable reading.
When large scale population studies show a benefit from helmets, and Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany don't have the lowest cycle injury rate together with the lowest helmet wearing rate, then I'll be looking very closely at what is working. Right now it's the other way around, showing that there is no net benefit from helmets.
Right now, if you want to make the biggest possible impact to your own safety, ride somewhere there are thousands and thousands of other cyclists, and ride according to cyclecraft and with plenty of patience and tolerance for other road users. Avoid being to the left of HGVs (where a helmet couldn't possibly save you anyway), and don't ride in the door zone. The effect of helmets is insignificant compared with these measures. I wasn't kidding when earlier I said that helmets are a safety red herring.0 -
BentMikey wrote:Right now, if you want to make the biggest possible impact to your own safety, ride somewhere there are thousands and thousands of other cyclists, and ride according to cyclecraft and with plenty of patience and tolerance for other road users. Avoid being to the left of HGVs (where a helmet couldn't possibly save you anyway), and don't ride in the door zone. The effect of helmets is insignificant compared with these measures. I wasn't kidding when earlier I said that helmets are a safety red herring.
That is so true :!: And increasing the number of cyclists would certainly have more safety benefits than the purported benefits of cycle helmets!0 -
Ok, I need to STOP reading this forum for a few hours as I have an exam on Tuesday and should be revising! haha, instead I find an excuse to have a break every too often LOL
0 -
Awesome!!!! We agree on something, LOL! Yeah, best go study for your exam. Good luck!0
-
Yes (now), no (years ago)
Partly because I'm now a driver, whereas I wasn't before - oddly, being a driver has made me more aware of the vulnerability of cyclists
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
Big Red S wrote:
Not really, no.mailmannz wrote:The fact those who formulated the theory didnt even bother to ask cyclists if they suddenly felt bullet proof seems a but odd dont you think?
And, besides, I know that (when riding off road) I ride faster when I've got more protective gear on. Full face helmet, pads etc. and I do feel invincible. I ride noticeably faster and crash far less frequently.
Keh?
You dont find it at least a little odd that a theory concocted to supposedly PROOVE cyclists take risks because they wear a helmet couldnt have actually got of their shiney white behinds and asked some cyclists if this is how they felt?
I find it odd that these people who propose this theory havent asked a random sample of cyclists if they feel bullet proof everytime they strap on a helmet OR even looked at the evidence out there for bike crashes to see if those involved in crashes who were wearing helmets only got in to those accidents because they took extra risks because they were wearing helmets?
Mailman0 -
A helmet's not going to save me from a truck or an idiot driver sure.
But it might well (and has) saved me from my overzealous right hand. Had an OTB at 30mph two weeks ago that resulted in concussion mostly due to me being a drop bar newb who panic braked. Landed full force on my head. I escaped with a headache and a mild consussion. My helmet did its job and squashed/cracked quite a bit. The results of me hitting the deck without it would've been somewhat more unpleasant. Yes, that's anecdotal, but if the statistical evidence says "meh, can't show it does any good, but definitely doesn't do harm " and the anecdotal evidence says "keeps skull unfractured during dumb crashes" then I'm tempted to go with the anecdotes.
On the mountainbike though, helmet use is a no-brainer (excuse the pun).0 -
No mailmannz, LOL! Now take this situation: you don't cycle without a helmet, ever, and yet you have to move to no-helmet-land where helmets are banned. Do you still cycle? The possible answers are:
a) No, it's too dangerous
b) Yes, but more carefully than before
c) Yes, just the same as eva.
I'd put it to you that a) is rubbish, and I doubt you'd stop cycling, c) is just as unlikely, and that most people would go for option b. Ergo you are demonstrating risk compensation every time you cycle here in real life wearing a helmet.
I find it so amusing that so many cyclists don't want to admit to risk compensation, particularly males. It's only human nature, and it's evident in many activities in life.0 -
There is clearly a difference between the effect of an individual wearing a helmet and the effect of making helmet wearing a law, i think these two are being rolled into one.
I am really struggling to find information showing that helmet wearing on its own makes your general safety worse. The opinion that it disturbs your vision or restricts movement etc... can instantly be discounted as soon as you try on a helmet that fits properly. Perhaps forcing people by law to wear helmets by law makes them wear ill fitting ones? who knows? that would go some way to explaining the accident rates.
I have worked in packaging design and many items have polystyrene protection, not to protect them if they fall out of the lorry and straight under a car but from general knocks and scrapes.
People will be arguing that using lights in the dark is dangerous next because they blind those that look straight into them.
A good example of risk compensation is how it is easy to hold your balance walking along a kerb stone, but i imagine doing the same thing with 100m drop next to you would not be so straight forward. Risk compensation does not necessarily make your riding worse though, if you were generally nervous it might allow you to take a more commanding position on the road and improve your safety further.FCN : 10 -
I don't think it's people not wanting to admit to risk compensation, I think it's them deciding it's not that big an effect.BentMikey wrote:I find it so amusing that so many cyclists don't want to admit to risk compensation, particularly males. It's only human nature, and it's evident in many activities in life.0 -
Big Red S wrote:
I don't think it's people not wanting to admit to risk compensation, I think it's them deciding it's not that big an effect.BentMikey wrote:I find it so amusing that so many cyclists don't want to admit to risk compensation, particularly males. It's only human nature, and it's evident in many activities in life.
Oh, I'd agree it's not a massive effect, but it is there to the extent that it tends to at least partly negate the effect of whatever safety equipment is being compensated for.
OTOH mailmannz is denying that he does ANY risk compensation, and that I'm saying it turns people into maniac riders, which is not correct.0 -
BentMikey wrote:Big Red S wrote:
I don't think it's people not wanting to admit to risk compensation, I think it's them deciding it's not that big an effect.BentMikey wrote:I find it so amusing that so many cyclists don't want to admit to risk compensation, particularly males. It's only human nature, and it's evident in many activities in life.
Oh, I'd agree it's not a massive effect, but it is there to the extent that it tends to at least partly negate the effect of whatever safety equipment is being compensated for.
OTOH mailmannz is denying that he does ANY risk compensation, and that I'm saying it turns people into maniac riders, which is not correct.
I agree. I've hit my head on three occasions while wearing a helmet. I only started wearing one around three years ago. Previously I hadn't hit my head once. I remember one occasion where I was overtaking a stationary lorry about two months ago and clipped my head on it's wing mirror. Nothing serious. The thing is I actually remember my thought process: 'I'm going to clip this, but it's ok as I have a helmet on'! I actually chose not to move my head out of the way! Stupid but true. Would I have done that with no helmet? Hell no (I hope!).0 -
SRSLY!?
I do believe in risk compensation, but thought that it was a bit more subconscious than that.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
I've tried to catch up with this thread...but I'm sure I've missed an awful lot :?
Some people seem to be saying things like "I don't wear a helmet because cycling is safe", or you're more likely to be injured as a ped, or cycle deaths are lower in The Netherlands and they don't wear helmets there!
I'm obviously missing the point...from my own personal experience, cycling IS safe... reletively...but there is a higher chance of being involved in an accident than if I was walking down the pavement, for the simple fact that I am on the road and there are cars in close proximity. Also take into account speed, stupid peds, stupid drivers, mechanical failure, drunk drivers, potholes, gusts of wind etc etc...
Well...I don't live in the Netherlands, or Germany or Denmark for that matter...I ride of British roads, with crazy British drivers, dreadful roads and no cycles lanes...so comparing us with other countries with a better infrastructure bears no weight for me.
It is true to say that there ahve been few (none?) proper studies to proves that cycle helmets save lives....but the only thing that matters to me is that I have banged my head enough times(without an helmet), doing enough things to know that it thurts. And I know that if my head connects with something hard I would prefer to have some protection rather than none.
Unless you come back to me with some like "in a impact between 15-20mph scientist have proven that polastyrene particles can be absorbed by hair folicles causing brain damage" that is...0 -
BentMikey wrote:No mailmannz, LOL! Now take this situation: you don't cycle without a helmet, ever, and yet you have to move to no-helmet-land where helmets are banned. Do you still cycle? The possible answers are:
That is an impossible question simply because any answer I give will support your theory...and makes about as much sense as replacing bike with car, and helmets with breaks
Mailman0 -
TheFoolio888 wrote:
I'm obviously missing the point...from my own personal experience, cycling IS safe... reletively...but there is a higher chance of being involved in an accident than if I was walking down the pavement, for the simple fact that I am on the road and there are cars in close proximity. Also take into account speed, stupid peds, stupid drivers, mechanical failure, drunk drivers, potholes, gusts of wind etc etc...
Pedestrians are on the pavement... yet still have accidents. This is because pavements stop at all junctions and start again the other side, so unless you only ever walk round the block then as a ped you are going to have to keep on venturing out into the road and this brings you into conflict with vehicular traffic.
Cyclists who ride correctly on the road integrate with the traffic and the conflict, and therefore the risk of accidents is less. Pedesrians have a higher accident rate per mile travelled than cyclists.
Obviously cyclists do have accidents and injuries to the head are more serious than injuries to the arm, say. So if helmets do in fact provide protection in the event of accident, and this benefit is not negated by risk compensation, then helmets can save lives. But why all the emphasis on cyclist's heads and not the equally vulnerable heads of everyone else?
It is likely that an effective helmet could save the lives of pedestrians and the occupants of vehicles, who actually make up over 95% of road deaths, but this is not considered necessary because it is appreciated that the actual risk does not warrant it. I am saying that the actual risk to cyclists doesn't warrant it either.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
could it be that as a ped you'll cover approximately 700 miles a year where as a cyclist you can cover 5000.
OK the average is just 46 miles a year over the whole pop.
If you’re a keen cyclist even if walking is riskier, "slightly". as a keen cyclist your covering 7 times as much ground.
plus all these studies don't take in your experence, where you cycle, what sort of bike you ride . . . . . . .15 * 2 * 5
* 46 = Happiness0 -
dondare wrote:TheFoolio888 wrote:
I'm obviously missing the point...from my own personal experience, cycling IS safe... reletively...but there is a higher chance of being involved in an accident than if I was walking down the pavement, for the simple fact that I am on the road and there are cars in close proximity. Also take into account speed, stupid peds, stupid drivers, mechanical failure, drunk drivers, potholes, gusts of wind etc etc...
Pedestrians are on the pavement... yet still have accidents. This is because pavements stop at all junctions and start again the other side, so unless you only ever walk round the block then as a ped you are going to have to keep on venturing out into the road and this brings you into conflict with vehicular traffic. Cyclists who ride correctly on the road integrate with the traffic and the conflict, and therefore the risk of accidents is less. Pedesrians have a higher accident rate per mile travelled than cyclists.
I should imagine most peds are injured when they step into the road(discounting extremely old, young or infirm!), without or without looking. Now if peds paid due care and attention, then really unless a car mounts the pavement, should NEVER be a ped death caused by a car. The fact is that they don't...so a lot of the time they have noone to blame but themselves for getting knocked over.
On the other hand, as a cyclist you are constantly in touching distance to a vehicle...and ther are any number of ways you could get hit regardless of how much care you are paying. One a bike there are more variables which can contribute to an accident no matter how good a rider you are. You only have to look at forums like this to see that even the best riders get pranged sometimes no matter how well they are integrating into traffic.0 -
TheFoolio888 wrote:
I should imagine most peds are injured when they step into the road(discounting extremely old, young or infirm!), without or without looking. Now if peds paid due care and attention, then really unless a car mounts the pavement, should NEVER be a ped death caused by a car. The fact is that they don't...so a lot of the time they have noone to blame but themselves for getting knocked over.
On the other hand, as a cyclist you are constantly in touching distance to a vehicle...and ther are any number of ways you could get hit regardless of how much care you are paying. One a bike there are more variables which can contribute to an accident no matter how good a rider you are. You only have to look at forums like this to see that even the best riders get pranged sometimes no matter how well they are integrating into traffic.
This raises a lot of other issues that would take us off on many tangents.
The fact is that you wear a helmet because you feel more at risk when cycling than you do when walking or driving. I don't object to you wearing the helmet, I can see the rreasoning behind it and I sometimes wear a helmet myself; but I am against compulsion and I am also against the very, very common sentiment that cyclists who do not wear helmets are being foolhardy to the point of negligence. I am also opposed to anything that reinforces the erroneous belief that cycling is intrinsically more dangerous than not cycling. Furthermore it is clear that helmets are often credited with saving rider's lives (or at least saving them from serious head injury) when in fact they didn't. Helmeted cyclists damage their lids far more frequently than unhelmeted ones suffer brain damage; and that cannot all be down to risk compensation. The dangers of cycling and the value of helmets are played up and the effect on cycling generally (and therefore the wellbeing of cyclists and the health of the Nation) is negative.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
Sorry but as with all surveys this is a load of tosh (use the testicle word as a substitute if you wish). Three people cycling/triking here, none of us wear helmets, none of us were surveyed,in this so called democracy we live in choice is paramount, nothing else is worthy of consideration (smokers take note).
As with the seat belt arguement when they were being put up for compulsion, there is always someone with a story of how they would be dead without one and someone else saying how useless they are, if you want one get it but if an injury is exacerbated by bad design and useless construction then don't crib about it with all the research (both ways) on the t'internet.
If I roll my Q-NT I will have to be 1. Stupid cos it's so stable and 2.Will need more than a helmet to get me out of the diddit.
Enjoy the ride
SeumasJust hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
I think it boils down to 'do I want my brains spattered across the road or not?'0
-
Sorry to be pedantic but upon looking at all the research I have seen it is highly debateable whether the average helmet will stop that happening.
As someone else said it is all a matter of choice (and I suppose which field of research you buy into).
SeumasJust hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
Try this simple test.
1. Put on a cycling helmet.
2. Hit yourself on top of your head as hard as you can with a standard sized housebrick.
3. Remove the helmet
4. Repeat no.2
Did it hurt a) Less, b) More, or c) about the same?
I tried it and came out with b, funnily enough.0 -
jmelewis wrote:Try this simple test.
1. Put on a cycling helmet.
2. Hit yourself on top of your head as hard as you can with a standard sized housebrick.
3. Remove the helmet
4. Repeat no.2
Did it hurt a) Less, b) More, or c) about the same?
I tried it and came out with b, funnily enough.
That is pretty funny
0 -
Ah but as no one in their right mind (unless hit by said house brick) would try such a test.
Anyway would the test be repeated 1000 times in a controlled environment ie: constant speed of brick, constant arc of hand to head etc Just hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
>>I tried it and came out with b, funnily enough.
Haha, had you tried it per instruction, you wouldn't be here with us. At least not for a while...
PS. Tip: use max force and aim at the edge for best effect.0 -
jmelewis wrote:Try this simple test.
1. Put on a cycling helmet.
2. Hit yourself on top of your head as hard as you can with a standard sized housebrick.
3. Remove the helmet
4. Repeat no.2
Did it hurt a) Less, b) More, or c) about the same?
I tried it and came out with b, funnily enough.
You tried it? Srsly?
In all my many, many years of cycling I have never been hit on the head by a brick, so I do not consider this test relevant.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
At 53 and a cyclist since boyhood, I only started wearing one ten years ago when my daughter asked why she had to wear one when I didn't !! Always a reluctant user, on Nov 5th 2005 returning home on my regular 11 mile commute in the dark I hit a pot hole, at around 19 MPH ( wind driven) hit the deck before I realised what had happened, fractured three ribs, blood oozed through skin graze's despite four layers of upper clothing and two to legs AND my helmet was severly cracked worse still, it had two large indentations around 15 mm deep from the gravel track, without it this would have been my skull and likely a different story given the impact.
To this day I am grateful to my daughter and wear it constantly, although I'd still rather not on lovely warm sunny days.
So--- im a -- YES.Pedaling spans generations.0 -
It really does seem that helmeted cyclists have more serious accidents, more often, than non-helmeted ones. RonL, would you have been cycling at 19 mph along a potholed, unlit gravel track in the dark if you'd been lidless?This post contains traces of nuts.0
