does a helmet make you feel safe

hamboman

anecdotal. As usual.

CheapSkate

<anecdote>
I've taken an impact to my skull at 20mph, luckily against a relatively moveable object. The skull's a durable thing, as the x-rays demonstrated.
</anecdote>

I learnt something from the experience, but I wasn't wearing a helmet then and I don't wear a helmet now.

I'm far better off for knowing that I'm vulnerable than I am riding around like I'm unbreakable, and it's what's in my head that governs that, not what's on it.

jam1ec

the pro helmet argument seems to be based on anecdote,
anti helmet seems to be based on assumptions.

Either can be argued invalid

I think it is best to share experiences so everyone can make up their own mind but without trying to force you opinion.

I like to wear a helmet because the majority of my cycling is mountain biking so i am used to the feel of wearing it. It also keeps my head warm, has a reflector on it and does not restrict my movement or vision in any way.

s1m0n

jam1ec wrote:

the pro helmet argument seems to be based on anecdote,
anti helmet seems to be based on assumptions.

When anti-lock brakes came in there was a 'theory' they were more dangerous because:
- drivers took more risks because they could brake later;
- were more likely to be 'rear ended' because other cars on the road that did not have ABS could not brake as quickly;

Sound familiar?

There are similar arguments about seat belt wearing which is why its still not a legal requirement in the US, so car manufacturers have had to make air bags more powerful over there to compensate for the lack of seat belt wearing.....

Perhaps we should strip off all safety features on our bikes (and cars) and we would all then naturally cycle (and drive) much more considerately and there'd be no accidents. Lets start by taking off all brakes - cyclists should have fixed gears to control their speed and drivers should just use engine braking to control theirs....

jam1ec

the problem is i'm not sold on the assumption that removing 'safety gear' makes people ride more considerately.

Applying this you could say cyclists who wear gloves ride more inconsiderately so we should encourage people not to wear them.

removing brakes is an interesting idea... i ride fixed and try not to use the brake, it certainly makes you approach lights and junctions differently.

misterben

Having left my helmet on the train the other week, and been helmetless for 10 days or so, I've realised something: I use my helmet as, in some ways, a status symbol. When I'm walking, wet and dishevelled, across the main concourse at the train station, the helmet explains it (my clothing is not "bikey" enough yet). And at work, it singles me out as a cyclist, when nothing else I am wearing does.

Cunobelin

Actually the "Brake" analogy is a good one.......


Locally every junction, traffic light and turning has special braking surfaces because drivrs cannot stop in time.


We have the best brakes in history, yet drivers now cannot stop at junctions which they could stop at previously......... one wonders why?

Couldn't possibly bel be because drivers are now approaching the junction at a speed where the new brakes cannot cope?

Risk compensation in action, or is there an alternative theory?

chronyx

Good point cunobelin

You see people steaming up to junctions then jumping on the brakes, coming to a complete stop (Hopefully) then flooring it :? Idiots.

BentMikey

jam1ec wrote:

the problem is i'm not sold on the assumption that removing 'safety gear' makes people ride more considerately.

It depends, if the safety gear has good benefits, and not too many negatives, then it would not be good to do away with the safety gear. Unfortunately helmets don't show any benefits in the population level studies, and they have significant negatives. This is not good.

Pretre

I can't honestly believe that anyone over the age of 10 would change their riding style due to the wearing of a helmet or not - if you ride dangerously then you ride dangerously.
I've only just bought a helmet after 35 years of resistance & it's made absolutely no difference to my riding style, apart from making my head hotter!

jam1ec

In the population level studies you have quoted, both on this site and your own one, i believe there is too much other noise to make credible conclusions. So to say they have significant negative effects is presumptuous and irresponsible.

I know someone who was killed through head injuries in a biking accident with a van and he didn't have a helmet on, and you can't help but think would the outcome be different if he had had a helmet on? The answer may be no but they question is still there and i have to say it makes you think.

So to tell people how bad a helmet is when you do not have any good evidence, unless you have not shared it yet, seems very reckless (i have read through the links you have posted). If you stop one person wearing one that was happy to do so before have you not increased their risk? if they got injured would you ask yourself i wonder if? Or would you be so arrogant to believe it had definitely made no difference?

So to reference the thread title, a helmet does make me feel safer. Importantly though seeing others wear helmets does not make me think the sport is any more dangerous.

Cunobelin

jam1ec wrote:

In the population level studies you have quoted, both on this site and your own one, i believe there is too much other noise to make credible conclusions. So to say they have significant negative effects is presumptuous and irresponsible.

I know someone who was killed through head injuries in a biking accident with a van and he didn't have a helmet on, and you can't help but think would the outcome be different if he had had a helmet on? The answer may be no but they question is still there and i have to say it makes you think.

So to tell people how bad a helmet is when you do not have any good evidence, unless you have not shared it yet, seems very reckless (i have read through the links you have posted). If you stop one person wearing one that was happy to do so before have you not increased their risk? if they got injured would you ask yourself i wonder if? Or would you be so arrogant to believe it had definitely made no difference?

So to reference the thread title, a helmet does make me feel safer. Importantly though seeing others wear helmets does not make me think the sport is any more dangerous.

I also not there is no "good evidence" in this post either.

It is difficult to comment on an accident where you have not ben involved, but the injuries of the cyclists are relevant. Often"head injury" is reported when the actual death is caused b internal injuries or the sheer scale of the trauma in a vehicle accident.

Equally one needs to know where the cause is. Were the brakes good, was there sufficient visibility and lighting - a whole host of questions.

Take the recent one here. Cyclist jumps red lights, hit by a speeding motorist texting on their phone - but a helmet would have been the answer to the problem!!!!!!

Helmets are SECONDARY, the avoidance of accidents and safe riding techniques are (or should be) the primary focus.

As for reckless, is it any less reckless to even suggest that a piece of flimsy polystyrene is going to protect you in the a 45 mph accident with a vehicle - by all means make claims about helmets, but at least be realistic!

alfablue

CheapSkate wrote:

<anecdote>
I've taken an impact to my skull at 20mph, luckily against a relatively moveable object. The skull's a durable thing, as the x-rays demonstrated.
</anecdote>

I learnt something from the experience, but I wasn't wearing a helmet then and I don't wear a helmet now.

I'm far better off for knowing that I'm vulnerable than I am riding around like I'm unbreakable, and it's what's in my head that governs that, not what's on it.

It is quite possible go sustain a disabling or fatal injury without a skull fracture by virtue of the force with which the brain is slammed onto the inside of the skull.

If wearing a helmet would make you ride around thinking you are unbreakable, then I would suggest that your brain may well have been affected by the impact.

richardast

Just over 2 weeks ago I was cycling to work.
As I was cycling around a mini-roundabout at low speed I hit a patch of oil/diesel that had been invisible from the direction I approached.
My wheels slid uncontrollably from under me and I hit the road.
My helmet has a dent in one side as a result of the spill.

I am glad that I was wearing a helmet because that dent may have otherwise been in the side of my skull. I would not suggest that the helmet saved my life, but it probably stopped my injuries being worse than they were.

As there is no hard evidence that proves whether helmets save lives or actually cause more injuries, we all exercise our own judgement and common sense based on what we know.

Wearing a helmet doesn't change my style of riding.
When I was younger I never wore one but I took plenty of risks. Funnily enough, I don't recall ever falling off on the road; I did have a few spills on grass (cycling on, not smoking).
I never wore a helmet until about 5 or 6 years ago.
Now that I almost always wear one, I ride much more carefully. That's probably because I'm older and no longer feel immortal, rather than being related to helmet use.

Common sense and experience tells me that being a big bloke riding a big bloke's road bike and wearing SPD clipped pedals, if I find myself going down sideways and out of control on the road I'm going to struggle to cushion my fall. It is for such occasions that I wear a helmet.
If I'm hit full on by a vehicle travelling in excess of 30 mph, the chances are I won't survive whatever I'm wearing. Fortunately, that's far less likely than just falling off due to sh1t roads, mechanical failure, lack of concentration or being clipped.

With reference to the earlier behavioural comparisons with ABS and braking, people who drive faster because they've got ABS just show their ignorance of what ABS actually does.
ABS does not enable you to stop in a shorther distance. It is quite the opposite. ABS only kicks in when the car's computer senses an imminent skid. ABS simply enables the driver to steer while braking without skidding, because the car is effectively cadence braking on the driver's behalf.
Overall, ABS increases braking distance rather than reducing it.

alfablue

Richardst - agree with your points above, but (slightly off topic) is it not the case that in the real world an average driver cannot generally achieve braking as effective as ABS, whilst an excellent driver will?

I don't really think the risk compensation thing would apply to ABS as it might to seat belts and helmets becaue it is an invisible aid (and for many, never used, or if it does kick in they are ignorant of its operation).

richardast

ABS is different to assisted braking and some other newer systems that top end German cars have.

All ABS does is cadence brake really quickly so that the car doesn't enter an uncontrollable skid and enable the driver to steer around a hazard. It keeps the car on the road rather than going into a ditch or barrier.
It does not improve braking efficiency.

It's only when you've experienced ABS in action that you learn it is something you really don't want to find yourself having to rely on.

alfablue

Yes I understand that Richard, I can feel the cadence braking through the pedal. F1 drivers, Schumacher in particular, according to the telemetry, have mastered the art of cadence braking to maximise the potential grip, right at the edge of adhesion, mere mortals like me can't do that very well, however they are only braking whilst turning, if they make a mistake (not denying that this is the principle advantage to motorists). My ABS kicks in during low grip situations, where I presume I would otherwise have locked the wheels and skidded rather than braking effectively - surely the end result is that I have slowed doen more efficiently? My point is really, that under ideal circumstances ABS would not stop me faster, but in the real world it can protect me from early loss of adhesion, through my incompetence, and thus improve my stopping power.

An anti-locking braking system allows the driver to maintain steering control under heavy braking by preventing a skid and allowing the wheel to continue to forward roll and create lateral control, as directed by driver steering inputs. Most commonly, braking distances are shortened (again, by allowing the driver to press the brake fully without skidding or loss of control). Disadvantages of the system include increased braking distances under rather rare circumstances and the creation of a "false sense of security" among drivers who do not understand the operation and limitations of ABS.

On high-traction surfaces such as bitumen, or concrete many (though not all) ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better (i.e. shorter) than those that would be easily possible without the benefit of ABS. Even an alert, skilled driver without ABS would find it difficult, even through the use of techniques like threshold braking, to match or improve on the performance of a typical driver with an ABS-equipped vehicle, in realworld conditions. ABS reduces chances of crashing, and/or the severity of impact. The recommended technique for non-expert drivers in an ABS-equipped car, in a typical full-braking emergency, is to press the brake pedal as firmly as possible and, where appropriate, to steer around obstructions. In such situations, ABS will significantly reduce the chances of a skid and subsequent loss of control.

Okay, points on all sides then!

richardast

I agree with you. It was suggested earlier that some people think that if their car has ABS then it means that they can crive faster because they've got "racing brakes".

The most efficient braking technique is actually hitting a wall or oncoming truck, as those individuals may eventually find out. 60mph to 0 in a couple of milliseconds.

karl j

Well i voted yes, partly because i thought it asked if it made me feel safer, and partly as i do wear one sometimes.

But when i don't wear it i don't feel unsafe - so have i blown my own theory i wonder

BentMikey

jam1ec wrote:

In the population level studies you have quoted, both on this site and your own one, i believe there is too much other noise to make credible conclusions. So to say they have significant negative effects is presumptuous and irresponsible.

I don't agree, if helmets worked as well as every prohelmet person claims, then the evidence would be blindingly obvious. We'd have reduced deaths and head injuries all round, but instead there's nothing visible. That's stunning really, and it's what convinced me to stop wearing a helmet when cycling, and instead focus on far more important and effective safety measures.

My comments are not presumptious, they are based on facts and evidence. Let's face it, the evidence against helmets is quite a lot stronger than the evidence for helmets. What about the pro helmet studies that, for example, show that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, and also 72% of leg injuries using the same data and methodology. Oops!!! Or the other study that shows a helmet also protects part of a second person. Double oops!

There are lots of examples like this with very dubious studies that are widely quoted in the media, and mislead people into believing that helmets are necessary for safe cycling, and that they will work to unrealistic expectations. That's irresponsible and dangerous.

alfablue

BentMikey wrote:

jam1ec wrote:

Let's face it, the evidence against helmets is quite a lot stronger than the evidence for helmets. What about the pro helmet studies that, for example, show that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, and also 72% of leg injuries using the same data and methodology. Oops!!! Or the other study that shows a helmet also protects part of a second person. Double oops!

Hi Bent, I think such studies might identify correlations between such variables, they don't as I am sure you know, suggest a causal link - many correlations are spurious, and / or indicate many other factors are at work, that may well be unidentified, that would explain the effect. For example, the more I spend on cycling, the better I get! A correlation but not causation. They can't actually help what the data throws up, and surely it is better to report it as is, regardless of whether it appeals to our logic.

BentMikey

No, those studies just had appallingly bad setup, and have been quite strenuously criticised.

alfablue

okay

Cunobelin

The best example was the "bicycle Helmet initiative Trust" who were launched in a blaze of publicity and support from a number of celebrities and organisations.

Within a year the greater majority were withdrawing support, sponsorship as the fallacy of their arguments and agendas were revealed...

Andrew Litchfield, Nationwide's Head of Social & Environmental Responsibility, told BikeBiz.com that Nationwide entered into its original sponsorship agreement in "good faith" and has now "responded appropriately" to "concerns" about its sponsorship of BHIT.(by withdrawing)

For instance BHIT claimed 50 children die each year from cycling related head injuries........

To clarify this Angela Lee then claimed that

"Each week at least one child will die from a head injury sustained through cycling

The highest for ALL cyclists was recorded in 2000 was 14, 2001 saw 12 and 2002 saw 10 and I repeat this is ALL cyclists including adults. In 200o the actual number of child deaths was......................3


The old case of no substantial facts use fear and emotional blackmail !

webbhost

FatBlokeFromFelixstowe wrote:

tardie wrote:

EXACTLY, it's a sensible safety thing to wear. Like lights!

I have to say, when I see another cyclist without a helmet, I give them I wide berth as they (generally in my experience) are the more dangerous cyclists - shoot up the left of traffic, turning without indicating, stopping without warning, etc.

Sorry about that last bit, but it's true!

What a load of crap. Only yesterday I saw a helmeted cyclist jump a red light. Is it right therefore for me to come to jump to the conclusion that all helmeted cyclists do this ???

actually I think I agree with tardie here... it "is" sensible just like lights, and I tend to find that atleast in our area - the people that don't wear helmets are either riding on paths - vunerable to opening doors, (ok so are road users, but atleast we have the right of way if it happens), but I also find that most road users without helmets are either teenagers that think they own the road, or older people that dont give a crap...either way a majority of them tend to have a MTB.

I find that real roadies wear helmets, and obey road rules alot safer. proper roadies using helmets are alot more likely to have read the highway code too.....

richardast

Cunobelin wrote:

The highest for ALL cyclists was recorded in 2000 was 14, 2001 saw 12 and 2002 saw 10 and I repeat this is ALL cyclists including adults. In 200o the actual number of child deaths was......................3

The old case of no substantial facts use fear and emotional blackmail !

I'm not sure where you are finding your figures but they are wildly inaccurate.
The number of cyclists killed on British roads normally hovers between 130 to 150 every year.
About 3000 more are seriously injured every year.

The figures you're quoting might be more accurate for a population the size of London, not the whole country.

Cunobelin

richardast wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

The highest for ALL cyclists was recorded in 2000 was 14, 2001 saw 12 and 2002 saw 10 and I repeat this is ALL cyclists including adults. In 200o the actual number of child deaths was......................3

The old case of no substantial facts use fear and emotional blackmail !

I'm not sure where you are finding your figures but they are wildly inaccurate.
The number of cyclists killed on British roads normally hovers between 130 to 150 every year.
About 3000 more are seriously injured every year.

The figures you're quoting might be more accurate for a population the size of London, not the whole country.

The figures were compiled by the DfT and given by Dr Ladyman in reply to a Parliamentry question in November 2003, and are for the whole country.

Tabulated and recorded in "Hansard"

(Reply on 10th November 2003 by Dr Ladyman, Dept of Health Minister, to Parliamentary Question by Brian Jenkins MP. Hansard Written Answers, 10th Nov 2003 page 17-8W )


The 130 - 150 figures are for deaths from all causes not head injuries alone, and illustrates clearly just how misinformed people are - the number of deaths due to head injuries is very low.

Your figures are accurate for ALL injuries, mine are accurate for deaths from Head Injuries - BHIT claimed that it was over 50, and this was totally dismissed.

Your figures are for ALL accidents, (not saying that you are guilty) , but this is the trick frequently used - suggesting that these accidents can be helped by helmets. BHIT is an old master at this trick.....

Even the instigator of the(Private Members) Helmet Bill Eric Martlew recognised the distortion of the BHIT claims, Martlew's figures are in keeping with mine....

"It is estimated that about 30 children a year get killed on cycles and the lives of 12 of them could be saved if we had compulsory helmets.

(BBC interview 29/11/2004)

Note Martlew quotes 12 not the 50+ claimed by BHIT!

The figures are correct, and the number of cyclist deaths due to head injuries only just edges into double figures - even the MP promoting the compulsory wearing of helmets recognises this!

richardast

Chill out Lady Macbeth.

Your capitalization of ALL cyclists suggested to me that you weren't just talking about head injuries, so it was a simple misunderstanding.

always_tyred

I wrote a long post a couple of weeks ago picking apart a "study" on helmet use in British Columbia. The point I was making has been re-iterated here, by members of both camps - that is that the statistics are being extracted from data with a vast amount of background "noise" and don't appear to show anything at all.

Despite this, lots of authors claim definitive conclusions from their analyses, or at the very least, their readers interpret the studies this way and don't appreciate the "disclaimers".

In the BC example, which I picked becuase I was living there at the time and knew more about the chronology upon which the anti-helmet author's assumptions were based, I was able to demonstrate that with the addition of new information, the author's own reasoning tipped their conclusions on their heads (pardon the pun).

I'd like to have someone from 'the other side' pick through my argument (they key point was that helmet uptake was pretty much complete by the time the law came into force, and that the authors' highlighted drop in injury rates that predated the law - according to them demonstrating that this was nothing to do with the law - demonstrated just the opposite) and argue against it. Instead, I/we are simply invited to comment on some other piece of irrefutable evidence. Is it just me that finds this exasperating?

There are a lot of people here saying "think for yourself, make your own mind up". I'm not sure that reading and quoting another individual's interpretation of data and another person's conclusions qualifies as thinking for yourself. If you can defend that opinion, have something of a working understanding of it, at least then its an opinion that can be respected, even if you don't agree.

There's also a lot of talk here about the "negative effects of helmet wearing". As I understand it, this falls into 2 categories; (1) it puts people off cycling (2) it makes drivers and cyclists wearing helmets take more risks.

(1) Here's an analogy that's less contentious. Lets imagine that wearing a flotation device is compulsory, but appears to put people off kayaking. What do you do? I mean, you are likely to be able to swim better without one, if you get caught under something, it is more likely to get caught up, etc. On the other hand, if you do happen to get knocked unconscious or are otherwise unable to swim, it will stop you from drowning. Do you (a) say, well kayaking is fun and healthy and the greater benefit is served by waiving the obligation for wearing a flotation device, because its really unlikely that you are going to get into an accident whilst kayaking? Or do you say (b) flotation devices are likely, but not always, going to save people in the event of an incident, but spread the word that you aren't likely to ever get into a situation where you need one and that they aren't all that bothersome anyway, so don't let it put you off? Besides, they come in lots of cool colours.

So I'm not sure I get why the analogous argument as applied to helmets degenerates into a debate about whether or not they provide any protection at all.

(2) Says who? Says motorists, in surveys. Unless anyone knows different, I'm aware of only one study that appears to show that helmet use actually manifests in changed behaviour. There was thay guy (was he at Bath Uni?) who played around wearing different things on his daily commute, measuring the passing distance afforded him by cars. What he didn't do, as far as I know, was include much in the way of controls. So, setting aside his rediculously low statistical sample (as I recall from what might well have been a poor summary of his work) he didn't take care to wear the same colours each time, even.

Look, I'm not saying the guy was an idiot, he was just having some fun, much like the study that was performed on toast landing butter side up/down (about 50:50, it turned out) and he gave some insight into human behaviour. But the study didn't in fact go any further than giving small clues into the things that we all know intuitively anyway - such as giving a wibbly wobbly cyclist more wobble room than an apparrently serious roadie, who we assume is going to hold a more predictable line.

But why is that? Is that because of the helmet the roadie is wearing, or because the helmet is a more common on the keen cyclist than the guy with his shopping dangling from the handlebars?

The argument (2) therefore appears to be based largely on what mortorists think that they do, without any real information as to what they actually do, or why. Someone else has already pointed out the distinction between correlation and causation. An example might be that cyclists as a group are, on average, amongst the most intelligent in society - I am not sure if that's true or not btw - This doesn't mean that cycling makes you more intelligent, it just means that the sport is comparatively expensive, money is correlated to success, etc, etc.

What was the question put to the motorist in these surveys, incidentally? Was it something open like "what factors determine how much room you give a cyclist?" or was it more like "do you give cyclists less room if they are wearing a helmet because you think they are safer?"

One question is rather more leading than the other, the other is so broad you are going to need to ask an awful lot of motorists to draw any meaningful conclusions. Those are obviously extremes of questions, but the point is that its very difficult not to produce a perturbation in the results as a consequence of the way that you gather them.

I doubt many of us are really able to comment in an informed way on the design of the studies, but you have to admit therefore that you are awfully reliant on some one else's expertise and objectivity.

There is a final incongruent argument that is cropping up: "I wear my helmet mountain biking, but there isn't any point on the road" (or words to that effect)

I don't understand. In mountain biking, the helmet is for when you fall off and hit your head under your own momentum, right? You are cycling in an unpredictable environment, there is a risk of falling, the environment contains solid objects (like trees and rocks) that you might hit your head on, so you wear a helmet.

What's different about the road, exactly?

The environment is unpredictable - okay, the terrain isn't all that unpredictable, but unlike mountain biking, the obstacles you negotiate are moving. There is a risk of falling (there are statstics out there that indicate that cyclists occasionally fall off, right?) and when you fall I can't see how you are less likely to hit your head than when you fall whilst mountain biking.

Under those circumstances, surely the helmet performs the same function as when mountain biking?

As I think we established on a previous thread, that's where some people "believe" that helmets are beneficial. Not much use against massive trauma associated with being hit in a big way by a car, but effective when you fall for some other reason, such as swerving out of the way of something.

As much as I got irritated in the dreaded "glasses" thread, the initial point (after the flip comment about glasses being more use than helmets were ever going to be) was that prevetative measures were much more effective than a helmet.

I totally agree.

Where I disagree (and its a personal choice either way) is that it follows that there is no point in wearing a helmet to mitigate the residual risk associated with the situations that you can't avoid.

Hell, if in another 10 years I've still not fallen off again, maybe I'll agree with that too!

I simply cannot accept that there aren't situations in which wearing a helmet will not provide protection. If you hit me over the head with a baseball bat, I'd rather be wearing my egg carton. I knocked myself out cycling one time from a blow right to the top of my head, so impacts of this type do happen.

So is the debate therefore not "does a helmet protect your head from moderate blunt force trauma?", because surely this is inarguable - if not, come by and I'll happily hit you all on the head with a plank of wood - but rather "is the likelihood of sustaining blunt force trauma of the type that a helmet provides protection from so low that their use is not worthwhile?"

That's arguable. Its a sensible argument to have. It opens up loads of other questions, a lot of which point to shared motivations, such as encouraging more cycling and better driving.

That's good, but in the mean time, for those of us who aren't put off by wearing our helmets, we are reducing our personal risk by some amount which may or may not be diminishingly small. The population based studies don't apply, because the helmet don't change our cycling habits or put us off cycling.

So, my beef is to evangelists one way or the other, really, which is what got me exersised on that other thread.

Cunobelin

richardast wrote:

Chill out Lady Macbeth.

Your capitalization of ALL cyclists suggested to me that you weren't just talking about head injuries, so it was a simple misunderstanding.

My apologies.....

That's why the statement in brackets was made....