Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

Cunobelin

Again what is being forgotten is where helmet can contribute.

Studies consistently show that cyclists are in a minority when it comes to head injuries. Pedestrians, car drivers and car passengers al feature more prominently in casualty department figures than cyclists.

For instance Thornhill et all published an article inthe BMJin 2000 carried out a study where the cohort was asimply those attending with a head injury...

The most common cause with 43% was falls, with assaults at 34% and alcoho; being a common factor to 61% of head injuries. Cyclists did not even feature as a significant group!

So the question must be asked if 61% of admitted head injuries were due to alcohol, shouldn't we be advocating helmets when drinking?

Again in 2000 Wardlaw also published a paper in the BMJ that showed that

Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping.

Pedestrian helmets?

cjw

Cunobelin wrote:

So the question must be asked if 61% of admitted head injuries were due to alcohol, shouldn't we be advocating helmets when drinking?

Interesting take on the binge drinking culture

I think tackling excessive drinking would be a better step though. Can you image, helmets becoming a badge of honour as people actively saying "I'm going to get so smashed I need a helmet tonight".

always_tyred

meanwhile wrote:

Mettan wrote:

JoeSoap76 wrote:

I'm no physicist but would a part of the 'mechanism' of the helmet not be that it absorbs some of the energy of the impact?

Although the foam in a 'broken' helmet might not have also compressed, there was still some energy transfer involved. That energy has been asborbed by the helmet which, as a result, has broken. Were the helmet not there to absorb that energy is it not logical to assume that the energy would, instead, have to be absorbed by the head?

Seems to me that absorbing the energy which would otherwise be absorbed by the head is precisely what a helmet should do. Whether that results in the helmet breaking or the foam compressing really doesn't change that I'd rather my helmet had to do it than my head.

Okay, so if I come off at 30mph and hit my head on a lamp post my helmet is unlikely to absorb all of the energy of the impact and I'm still going to take a hefty conk to the noggin, but (and again, no physicist) unless the foam in a helmet is able to transfer 100% of the energy of its impact with an object through to the head inside, it must have a subtractive effect. If that's not the case and the foam used in helmets absorbs none of the energy let me know because there must be thousands of areas where a substance like that would be invaluable.

Personally, where my head is concerned every little helps so even a small reduction in force is going to be worth it

Agreed - and well put.

I *do* happen to have a physics degree, and the above is bs.

Doesn't it alarm you at all that the guy who is the UK's #1 expert in helmets - the man who the courts call as a witness and who is responsible for testing - says that helmets don't work this way? There's no obligation on real life to be simply enough so that everything works the first way someone completely ignorant of the subject imagines. When an expert gives an opinion, based on actual expertise and years of empirical testing, then you should at least understand the basis for the opinion. Maintaining your ignorance, waving your hands and saying "But schoolboy physics tells me -" isn't likely to produce a more accurate result.

Otoh, your efforts may get hired you as global non-warming experts by the Bush administration.

Okay, so how do they work then? I warn you, there's quite a few PhD's kicking around the forum, so better make it a good answer. No sloppy terminilogy please. In your own words. Do no plagiarise.

h i r 0

Was the poll question edited to add 'bad'? I don't remember it saying that when I voted.

attica

Is it just me, or is not wearing a helmet because they only help in minor impacts all a bit nihilistic?

Ride sensibly, avoid RLJing and keep your eyes peeled for absolute loons heading toward you at 70mph in the wrong direction and you're probably only ever going to have a mild impact.

Also, with all that forward momentum, I can't help thinking that the protection offered against tarmac scraping past your head has got to be worth wearing a helmet alone.

Schoolboy physics bit:- If you come off your bike and hit tarmac the impact is only going to be as a result of acceleration downward, speed is only going to change the angle of that impact but have no effect on the speed your head approaches the tarmac at.

Someone already said that helmets are designed to protect from a fall from the normal sitting position on a bike, job done.

jedster

Meanwhile,

re risk compensation and helmets

I think your cartoonish characterisation of the concept of risk compensation is pretty silly.

I almost never cycle without a helmet so I'm not a very good test of this but last week I did cycle through central London without my helmet. I can assure you that I cycled more slowly than usual and took a different line through some junctions.

A better test for me is skiing where I reasonably often dispense with a helmet. Again, I tend to ski the same terrain faster when wearing a helmet than when I am not.

I'm not for one moment saying that I feel invulnerable wearing a helmet - I've had accidents wearing helmets and I'd prefer to avoid them! I am however more conscious of the risks when I'm not helmetted.

Surely this is quite natural?

J

DavidTQ

jedster wrote:

Meanwhile,

re risk compensation and helmets

I think your cartoonish characterisation of the concept of risk compensation is pretty silly.

I almost never cycle without a helmet so I'm not a very good test of this but last week I did cycle through central London without my helmet. I can assure you that I cycled more slowly than usual and took a different line through some junctions.

A better test for me is skiing where I reasonably often dispense with a helmet. Again, I tend to ski the same terrain faster when wearing a helmet than when I am not.

I'm not for one moment saying that I feel invulnerable wearing a helmet - I've had accidents wearing helmets and I'd prefer to avoid them! I am however more conscious of the risks when I'm not helmetted.

Surely this is quite natural?
J

That depends really on the level of safety you want from your normal cycling, my riding isnt tuned to the risk of head injury its tuned to the risk of ANY injury at all (even very minor), Im quite averse to ANY unnecesary pain and my riding reflects that, therefore when I have forgotten my helmet my riding choices are no different. Because to be entirely honest I dont even want to graze an elbow or skin a knee if its not necesary

jedster

But DAvid, everything is a compromise. If you really wanted to minimise the risk of a graze, you'd wear motorbike leathers!

I (almost) always wear full finger gloves. On the rare occasions, I've forgotten them, I'm acutely alert to the fact that coming off would be seriously painful. I likely take corners a little slower. Like you, I am crash averse! I'm not one of thee hardened roadies who thinks roadrash is a part of life.

J

DavidTQ

jedster wrote:

But DAvid, everything is a compromise. If you really wanted to minimise the risk of a graze, you'd wear motorbike leathers!

I (almost) always wear full finger gloves. On the rare occasions, I've forgotten them, I'm acutely alert to the fact that coming off would be seriously painful. I likely take corners a little slower. Like you, I am crash averse! I'm not one of thee hardened roadies who thinks roadrash is a part of life.

J

If cycling in motorcycle leathers was practical Id do it in a heart beat , I have a vague preference for tights and longsleeved jerseys over t-shirt and shorts when the weather allows for the minimal extra road rash protection the offer

However the physical effort I put into cycling means motorcycle leathers are far more likely to cause medical problems than they are to stop road rash .

If I were to be wearing full motor cycle leathers it very possible Id be doing some risk compensation and taking risks Because if its not going to hurt, why not

But I dont believe I do take extra risks for having a helmet as my riding is tuned to avoiding any road rash and road rash accidents are far more likely than brain injury ones in my opinion. On the few occaisions I have managed to forget my helmet I dont believe Ive made a single different decision due to the lack of helmet!

I wear a helmet because I dont find it that uncomfortable, it an all over body solution was available that offered similiar low levels of discomfort even in the summer, and moderate road rash protection at the cost of michelin man looks Id happily take it. and probably would start risk compensating, certain down hills. I currently go down hills slower than I ride along the level

Mr_Cellophane

I am amazed by the number of people (mainly children) who wear their helmets wrong - usually perched on the back of their head. I thought that this was more dangerous than not wearing one.
I have never managed to pluck up the courage to say anything to their parents.

cee

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

I am amazed by the number of people (mainly children) who wear their helmets wrong - usually perched on the back of their head. I thought that this was more dangerous than not wearing one.
I have never managed to pluck up the courage to say anything to their parents.

I also think that this is part of the "helmets are uncool" image. Most people picture a big bell hanging off the back of someones head.

always_tyred

No one seems to have taken my increased risk from fly fishing point at all seriously.

What is wrong with you people?

DavidTQ

Always Tyred wrote:

No one seems to have taken my increased risk from fly fishing point at all seriously.

What is wrong with you people?

J R Hartley covers the issue of fly fishing safety in his definitive book on the subject doesnt he?

Crapaud

DavidTQ wrote:

J R Hartley covers the issue of fly fishing safety in his definitive book on the subject doesnt he?

I think that was before his time. You may be being confused by Hartley the hare's treatise on the fire retardance of of lids.



Hope this helps.

Cunobelin

cjw wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

So the question must be asked if 61% of admitted head injuries were due to alcohol, shouldn't we be advocating helmets when drinking?

Interesting take on the binge drinking culture

I think tackling excessive drinking would be a better step though. Can you image, helmets becoming a badge of honour as people actively saying "I'm going to get so smashed I need a helmet tonight".

Which is rather a good analogy........

We should be tackling the dangerous road culture and education in the same way rather than a placebo.

meanwhile

Cunobelin wrote:

So the question must be asked if 61% of admitted head injuries were due to alcohol, shouldn't we be advocating helmets when drinking?

You mean those things with a can of beer on each side and a straw?

We should be tackling the dangerous road culture and education in the same way rather than a placebo.

This is what concerned me when I found that helmet info. They're being presented to cyclists and drivers as something they're not. Virtually everyone believes that they will help in a serious accident, but they won't - they're not even intended to.

Mettan

meanwhile wrote:

This is what concerned me when I found that helmet info. They're being presented to cyclists and drivers as something they're not. Virtually everyone believes that they will help in a serious accident, but they won't - they're not even intended to.

They help prevent open head wounds in low-energy impacts - they're of little use in high-energy impacts. I'm not entirely sure how they're marketed to new cyclists, but many/most expereinced cyclists seem to realise their utility in low-energy situations.

biondino

Your sole argument, meanwhile, is that helmets MIGHT make rotational brain injuries worse in high-impact accidents*. Every other benefit you choose to ignore. Why the agenda?

I won't argue that there are elements of the cycling community who may well ride more recklessly because they feel the helmet makes them invulnerable. This is an education issue, not a helmet issue.


*The key quote on Wikipedia is "Bicycle helmet crash simulation experiments carried out as part of this project indicated very high rotational accelerations for a fall over the handlebars at 45 km/hr. The rotational accelerations were found to be 30 percent higher than those found in similar tests using a full face polymer motorcycle helmet.". The amount of time I am going anywhere near 45km/hr is, maybe, 1%, and I'll wager that 99% of my fellow cyclists are in the same position. I want protection the other 99% of the time.

iga

I'm under no illusions that a helmet is going to offer protection in anything other than a low speed off and if I was actually hit by something at any speed it is unlikely to be much to help. But I'd still prefer not to be picking buts of windscreen out of my scalp whilst I'm in a neckbrace all the same...

cee

biondino wrote:

Your sole argument, meanwhile, is that helmets MIGHT make rotational brain injuries worse in high-impact accidents*.

and actually, we kinda agree that in a big accident like that....particularly where another vehicle is involved means your pretty much farked anyway, so does the possibility of a rotational head injury in a high speed, high impact accident detract from protecting ourselves from the more likely accidents at low speed, low impact?

karl j

the one time i went to hospital due to a cycling injury i had broken ribs after taking a corner speedway style across a manhole cover

An overweight dr who stunk of tobacco then gave me a lecture about how important a helmet is. Still can't quite see how it would have protected my ribs though...

sometimes i wear it, sometimes not

Cunobelin

biondino wrote:

Your sole argument, meanwhile, is that helmets MIGHT make rotational brain injuries worse in high-impact accidents*. Every other benefit you choose to ignore. Why the agenda?

I won't argue that there are elements of the cycling community who may well ride more recklessly because they feel the helmet makes them invulnerable. This is an education issue, not a helmet issue.


*The key quote on Wikipedia is "Bicycle helmet crash simulation experiments carried out as part of this project indicated very high rotational accelerations for a fall over the handlebars at 45 km/hr. The rotational accelerations were found to be 30 percent higher than those found in similar tests using a full face polymer motorcycle helmet.". The amount of time I am going anywhere near 45km/hr is, maybe, 1%, and I'll wager that 99% of my fellow cyclists are in the same position. I want protection the other 99% of the time.

SOle argument?

Amongst the other evidence (you appear to have missed) is that these helmets are designed to work at 12 mph or less.

So your claim of "Protection" for the other 99% of the time is hopelessly optimistic...... but then again if you are cycling at less than 12 mph in order to ensure your safety- youhave my respect. If not though - why are you increasing your risk?

biondino

meanwhile claims that above 12mph you get zero benefit from a helmet. This is, clearly complete bollocks.

Helmets may be DESIGNED to deal with 12mph accidents, but then a can of baked beans is DESIGNED to be eaten by a particular date. Aspirin is DESIGNED to be taken in a particular dose. What they all have in common is a substantial margin for error. Would you honestly rather not be wearing a helmet at, say, 16mph?

We all agree that high speed, high impact accidents are likely to kill you anyway. There may be a very small crossover zone in term of impact where a helmet makes things worse, but then I have no idea at what speed a car or kerb has to hit your bare head to kill you. So if the ONLY point at which a helmet actually does you harm is this tiny crossover zone - while in any low-speed impact it makes a huge difference - then the pay-off is, if you'll pardon the expression, a no-brainer.

But I'm not an expert. My understanding of physics doesn't go much beyond the absorprtion of energy. I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study of helmet wear which ISN'T presented by someone with a (very peculiar) agenda.

(as for children - most of them will spend most of their time under 12 mph so how could you possibly argue against helmets there?)

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

biondino wrote:

Your sole argument, meanwhile, is that helmets MIGHT make rotational brain injuries worse in high-impact accidents*. Every other benefit you choose to ignore. Why the agenda?

I won't argue that there are elements of the cycling community who may well ride more recklessly because they feel the helmet makes them invulnerable. This is an education issue, not a helmet issue.


*The key quote on Wikipedia is "Bicycle helmet crash simulation experiments carried out as part of this project indicated very high rotational accelerations for a fall over the handlebars at 45 km/hr. The rotational accelerations were found to be 30 percent higher than those found in similar tests using a full face polymer motorcycle helmet.". The amount of time I am going anywhere near 45km/hr is, maybe, 1%, and I'll wager that 99% of my fellow cyclists are in the same position. I want protection the other 99% of the time.

SOle argument?

Amongst the other evidence (you appear to have missed) is that these helmets are designed to work at 12 mph or less.

So your claim of "Protection" for the other 99% of the time is hopelessly optimistic...... but then again if you are cycling at less than 12 mph in order to ensure your safety- youhave my respect. If not though - why are you increasing your risk?

That's not quite right. They are designed to offer a certain level of protection against a certain level of momentum, which roughly approximates to a head shaped mallet weighing about the same as a head, hitting a resilient object at 12 mph.

If said mallet imacts resilient object at the equivalent of 13mph, what happens? Does the helmet offer zero protection? Or less protection, but some protection? When does zero protection occur? Or is there always a little protection?

What I figure is that a helmet MIGHT be the difference between animal and vegetable. The only certainty is that if you don't wear one, it will offer zero protection.

Think of it this way - I wear cycling gloves in case I fall because I want to protect my hand against road rash and my palm against bruising. If I land heavily enough, I bruise my hand, the cloth tears and I get road rash. Does this make the glove useless? Or would it have been even worse without them?

Do we have arguments over leather vs. lorica, the merits or otherwise of gel pads? Do we argue that the european glove standard is up to a 10 yard scrape along rough tarmac under a 75kg weight at 12mph, but that the average grade of british tarmac is far rougher than the french standard, or that the average accident occurs over 12 yards, so why bother?

Why then is the helmet debate so given to absolutes?

I have no problem with the opinion that although the helmet offers some protection, but that protection is not significant enough to merit its use. However, I think that if the helmet was as comfortable and went as unnoticed as, say, the chamois in your shorts, people would wear one anyway 'cos it can't do any harm.

Getting people to admit that that a sweaty head and really, really bad hair when you get to work is why they don't like helmets is, for me, the main challenge. All of the imaginative and circuitous arguments skirting around this motivation just pi$$ me off.

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

biondino wrote:

Your sole argument, meanwhile, is that helmets MIGHT make rotational brain injuries worse in high-impact accidents*. Every other benefit you choose to ignore. Why the agenda?

I won't argue that there are elements of the cycling community who may well ride more recklessly because they feel the helmet makes them invulnerable. This is an education issue, not a helmet issue.


*The key quote on Wikipedia is "Bicycle helmet crash simulation experiments carried out as part of this project indicated very high rotational accelerations for a fall over the handlebars at 45 km/hr. The rotational accelerations were found to be 30 percent higher than those found in similar tests using a full face polymer motorcycle helmet.". The amount of time I am going anywhere near 45km/hr is, maybe, 1%, and I'll wager that 99% of my fellow cyclists are in the same position. I want protection the other 99% of the time.

SOle argument?

Amongst the other evidence (you appear to have missed) is that these helmets are designed to work at 12 mph or less.

So your claim of "Protection" for the other 99% of the time is hopelessly optimistic...... but then again if you are cycling at less than 12 mph in order to ensure your safety- youhave my respect. If not though - why are you increasing your risk?

That's not quite right. They are designed to offer a certain level of protection against a certain level of momentum, which roughly approximates to a head shaped mallet weighing about the same as a head, hitting a resilient object at 12 mph.

If said mallet imacts resilient object at the equivalent of 13mph, what happens? Does the helmet offer zero protection? Or less protection, but some protection? When does zero protection occur? Or is there always a little protection?

What I figure is that a helmet MIGHT be the difference between animal and vegetable. The only certainty is that if you don't wear one, it will offer zero protection.

Think of it this way - I wear cycling gloves in case I fall because I want to protect my hand against road rash and my palm against bruising. If I land heavily enough, I bruise my hand, the cloth tears and I get road rash. Does this make the glove useless? Or would it have been even worse without them?

Do we have arguments over leather vs. lorica, the merits or otherwise of gel pads? Do we argue that the european glove standard is up to a 10 yard scrape along rough tarmac under a 75kg weight at 12mph, but that the average grade of british tarmac is far rougher than the french standard, or that the average accident occurs over 12 yards, so why bother?

Why then is the helmet debate so given to absolutes?

I have no problem with the opinion that although the helmet offers some protection, but that protection is not significant enough to merit its use. However, I think that if the helmet was as comfortable and went as unnoticed as, say, the chamois in your shorts, people would wear one anyway 'cos it can't do any harm.

Getting people to admit that that a sweaty head and really, really bad hair when you get to work is why they don't like helmets is, for me, the main challenge. All of these imaginative and circuitous arguments just pi$$ me off.

Cunobelin

biondino wrote:

meanwhile claims that above 12mph you get zero benefit from a helmet. This is, clearly complete bollocks.

Helmets may be DESIGNED to deal with 12mph accidents, but then a can of baked beans is DESIGNED to be eaten by a particular date. Aspirin is DESIGNED to be taken in a particular dose. What they all have in common is a substantial margin for error. Would you honestly rather not be wearing a helmet at, say, 16mph?

We all agree that high speed, high impact accidents are likely to kill you anyway. There may be a very small crossover zone in term of impact where a helmet makes things worse, but then I have no idea at what speed a car or kerb has to hit your bare head to kill you. So if the ONLY point at which a helmet actually does you harm is this tiny crossover zone - while in any low-speed impact it makes a huge difference - then the pay-off is, if you'll pardon the expression, a no-brainer.

But I'm not an expert. My understanding of physics doesn't go much beyond the absorprtion of energy. I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study of helm
et wear which ISN'T presented by someone with a (very peculiar) agenda.

(as for children - most of them will spend most of their time under 12 mph so how could you possibly argue against helmets there?)

I am so pleased that you continue to simply dismiss everything you disagree with as "bollocks", such a mature analysis of the data - I salute your much superior discussion skills.

Firstly - Children are NOT adults, developmental stage of the skull, slower speeds, different accident mechanisms make this s different subject altogether. HOwever again why when cycling - most head injuries happen OFF the bike.Over 500,000 head injuries happned last year that could be prevented by helmet use - why are we being so iresponsible and allowing children out without such important safety equipment?

If we are serious about helmets why are we not promoting Thudguards or similar - If you believe what you are writing - please explain why these should not be worn....







Secondly if you actually read the post, the statement is that 99% of the time you are protected is optimistic, this is a fact you have dismissed as "bollocks"and then totally failed to support.

The question was why you are using the helmet outside it's design parameters, you have within your choice the ability to reach the 99% reliability you wish by cycling inside the parameters. The fact that you choose to ride outside these parameters and increase your risk is surely a "no brainer" ?

Why are you allowed to estimate your personal risk and make a decision on this estimation, , but not those who choose not to wear helmets - hypocrisy surely?

always_tyred

So good I posted twice.....

Just to be clear,and to not inflame matters - to say that arguments other than not liking the feel of a helmet pith me off is a little harsh - they frustrate me a little.... okay a lot.

I took to wearing a helmet full time when I had to. Before then I would arbitrarily sometimes wear some shocking purple monstrosity that was like a piece of torture apparatus. As a result of realising that I was going to wear whatever helmet I invested in every day, I invested in something that fit, was comfortable and consequently became genuinely as unnoticed as the gloves I was wearing or the shirt on my back.

At the time, the helmet regulations in the region I was living were patchy, so - from more the science aspect of it - and I am a scientist - I looked into it a little (not as much as some !! ) and formed my "cant' do any harm, probably does some good, don't notice it now anyway" opinion and have worn one ever since, even though I don't have to since moving back home.

I honestly think that if they were mandatory, my experience would be the norm. Also, through familiarity, they would become unnoticed to both cyclists and others.

I believe that once you stop noticing the helmet, all of the arguments relating to changing riding and driving behaviour due in incresed perceived safety go out of the window, because you stop perceiving it. So, you are left with simply the physics of the thing. And that can be improved by engineering. Which is another debate, I think.

But I still, surprisingly, don't want to be compelled to wear a helmet. It would just become another stick to beat us with.

Cunobelin

But...........................

We still have THE quetsion of why cyclists. All these "Pro-helmet arguments" apply equally or to a greater extent in other groups.

Take the Thudguard.................... I think it has an equal place in child safety - can I look forward to your suport after all there is no argument against its use / compulsion that has not been dismissed as "bollocks" or simply ignored

always_tyred

I don't understand.

Is the thudguard something to stop toddlers from braining themselves on furniture, or something?

If you are referring more generally to safety measures for non-cycling activities, I think you may have to go to a non-cycling forum.

Myself, I cycle, I row. When I do anything else I tend to take advice as to appropriate safety gear. But since I'm not into anything else in a big way, I'm not in an informed position.

You are right. Cycling is not the most dangerous thing I can imagine doing. But it is what I do a lot of.

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

meanwhile claims that above 12mph you get zero benefit from a helmet. This is, clearly complete bollocks.

Wrong.

What I actually claimed that was that, according to the best experts I could find, who all give expert testimony in court:

- The helmets are designed to protect at 12 mph

- But that most of them don't this, either because they fail to meet the Snell standard for impacts at this speed, or because they are almost universally mis-fitted or mis-worn

- That the safety benefits that they do give, in the rare event a Snell helmet is correctly worn, may well be outweighed by the disadvantages

Those are the most important things.

Helmets may be DESIGNED to deal with 12mph accidents, but then a can of baked beans is DESIGNED to be eaten by a particular date. Aspirin is DESIGNED to be taken in a particular dose.

So is paracetamol. The critical dosage threshold for which is much narrower than for asprin - people die every year from applying exactly the reasoning you think is safe.

In the case of helmets, a helmet designed for a 12mph crash may well function at 13mph - and it may fail at even 11 or 10 or 9, if it meets an awkward striking surface. But the the diminishment above 12 will be very fast - kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. So in particular the argument that a 12mph helmet subtracts 12mph from a 25mph crash is, leaving the damage of a 13mph crash is, as any 12 year who stayed away in physics class could tell you, ludicrous nonsense. (The energy left would actually be that a 20mph crash, although I suspect you won't understand why.)

But remember - the above is just my explanation. What the smarter people should contemplate is that the likely absence of even potential benefit from a helmet when your head is in a direct rigid impact at more than 12mph is not my idea but testimony from expert witnesses. Which should not be undermined, I suggest, by the fact that a man on the Internet to whom schoolboy physics is clearly a mystery invokes arguments that contain words like "energy". The main guy I'm quoting has smashed more helmets (scientifically) and looked at more accident reports than some of us have eaten Power Bars.