Helmet, Yes or No?

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Joking aside, thats the only way people could buy based on safety, with some kind of meaningful rating. Until then, those of us who want helmets will look at what is available, in my case see one with flames (Giro Animas) and that will be that!

But that is my point, safety is almost a secondary issue when buying a helmet. You know its going to protect to a point but it doesn't justify spending over £45 which most of us do...

Similarly, function and value are often secondary considerations with buying any other cycling equipment, with bling being the primary consideration.

salsajake

Always Tyred wrote:

salsajake wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

salsajake wrote:

I disagree with the last warburton post, and I don't know what a 'creationist' is, so not sure what the point was there.

Not when we are talking about PERSONAL choices as to why we do/don't wear helmets, I think it is eminently sensible.

The basis for what I do is MY experiences. I don't care if the chances of me having an accident are said BY 'THEM' to be 0.000067%. That means very little to me as some numpty ploughs out of a junction and I sail over his bonnet gazing down at the approaching tarmac.

Besides, if you look at what I was saying, it was ignoring science in the context of putting it to one side and seeing if you would rather be hit in the head with a baseball bat with foam on it or not, or if you were going to be hit in the head, would you rather wear a helmet first. Surely you don't reject those arguments?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but as you said your reasons for wearing a helmet are YOUR reasons, your rationale born out of your experiences. Subjective to yourself and so your theories/questions and answers (foam bat or baseball bat) cannot be applied to anyone else. They are abstract points relating to your own personal preference.

Incidentally what helmet do you have?

My Qs & As are surely applicable to anyone? If someone agrees with science and that the helmet offers no head protection and there is no proof and then someone else says to them "I am going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat (Jackass style). Would you like to wear a helmet or not?" I think the person who says that there is no evidence that the helmet will help them would still choose to wear the helmet, the question is out there to see if anyone disagrees!

This is rather like saying...,

No it isn't. Its saying (as it does in fact say) if you are about to be subjected to a random and forcible blow to your head would you like to wear a helmet.

I think anyone who wasn't sick of living would say 'yes', even if they were prepared to (on a forum) apparently stand behind science and say it wouldn't make any difference.

It seems the 2 schools of thought that I reject on here are:

1. The risks of banging your head when riding a bike are so small that it is not worth bothering about
2. If you bang your head, wearing a helmet will not help you.

My point about a baseball bat was intended to challenge point 2. Is there something earlier in the thread about tests with head shaped anvils and peak forces, I would be interested to see what tests have been done, but they won't change my mind!

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

Similarly, function and value are often secondary considerations with buying any other cycling equipment, with bling being the primary consideration.

So why is everyone preaching "safety" when it was argubly the secondary reason for buying a helmet.

Surely they should be saying "You should wear a helmet, in the same colour scheme as your bike because it looks cool!"

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

I do appreciate that actual risks are not, in fact, that much different from other activities (a few multiples, rather than an order of magnitude). Which is reassuring, but the twice as high risk, or five times as high risk, or whatever it is, is enough for me personally to decide to wear a helmet for this activity and not for the others (such as walking down the street).

Fishing and horseriding are, apparantly, an order of magnitude more dangerous (would you let your daughter ride a pony?). Climbing and "airsports", two.
Rambling, however, is an order of magnitude safer...

We're starting from a pretty low base, though. Even a hundred times a very small number may not result in a big one!

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I do appreciate that actual risks are not, in fact, that much different from other activities (a few multiples, rather than an order of magnitude). Which is reassuring, but the twice as high risk, or five times as high risk, or whatever it is, is enough for me personally to decide to wear a helmet for this activity and not for the others (such as walking down the street).

Fishing and horseriding are, apparantly, an order of magnitude more dangerous (would you let your daughter ride a pony?). Climbing and "airsports", two.
Rambling, however, is an order of magnitude safer...

We're starting from a pretty low base, though. Even a hundred times a very small number may not result in a big one!

Cheers,
W.

I don't have a daughter. However, were my cat to want to go horseriding, I'd insist upon the provision of a helmet.

Aparrently you are quite likely to drop dead playing squash (overweight mid-life crisis executive power trip quick game after work to show him what for - sport that it is).

I always wonder about golf as well, since the average age of a golfer is about 75, such that you would imagine ancient golfers dropping dead with excitement all over the place..... ahh, exitement, that's it... golf is entirely safe, sorry for the false alarm.

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Similarly, function and value are often secondary considerations with buying any other cycling equipment, with bling being the primary consideration.

So why is everyone preaching "safety" when it was argubly the secondary reason for buying a helmet.

Surely they should be saying "You should wear a helmet, in the same colour scheme as your bike because it looks cool!"

No, bling is the reason for spending £120 instead of £40, having already made the determination that a helmet is required.

robmanic1

Always Tyred wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

W.

I always wonder about golf as well, since the average age of a golfer is about 75, such that you would imagine ancient golfers dropping dead with excitement all over the place..... ahh, exitement, that's it... golf is entirely safe, sorry for the false alarm.

Wha.......? Have you not seen "Falling down".

always_tyred

Robmanic1 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

W.

I always wonder about golf as well, since the average age of a golfer is about 75, such that you would imagine ancient golfers dropping dead with excitement all over the place..... ahh, exitement, that's it... golf is entirely safe, sorry for the false alarm.

Wha.......? Have you not seen "Falling down".

Why do you think I cycle to work?

Rich158

Given the level of frustration involved, the size of most amateur golfers, and the stress involved in trying to get that fudging little white ball to go in a straight line from tee to hole I'd think it's massively more dangerous than cycling. And that's before you even take into account the likelyhood of being hit by a golf ball struck by some incompetent numpty on the next tee.

Aguila

Underscore wrote:

Aguila wrote:

Here is some simple physics for the morons who do not wear helmets:

[... yada yada ...]

As for the usual "thats not proof" retort to anecdotes and "there's no evidence" consider this:

[... more yada yada ...]

As someone else put it even if it reduces the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5% I'd pay £30 for that.

OK, I tried to avoid piling back in but, being an eternal optimist, there comes a point where I can't help myself but try to correct someone's ignorance.

These threads always reduce to whether wearing a helmet should be compulsory - either in law or merely to avoid being called names, like in the above post. While I do wear a helmet, I will make a statement, justify it and welcome any considered responses.

Requiring people to wear cycle helmets would make cycling more dangerous

On what basis do I make such an assertion? Two studies: The first was a study of bike accident statistics from before and after cycle helmet use was made compulsory in Australia. The second is the study that shows that the more of the populous cycles, the safer cycling becomes.

The first study showed that making it compulsory to wear a helmet had no effect on the incidence of serious head injuries per km cycled (though there was a reduction in superficial head injuries); however, there was a reduction of about 30% (IIRC) in the total number of km cycled.

So, if making helmet use compulsory doesn't improve safety (as measured by KSIs) but reduces the amount of cycling, and reducing the amount of cycling reduces the safety of cycling, making helmet use compulsory would make cycling more dangerous. Discuss...

Personally, I'll take the reduction in superficial head injuries as a reason to wear one but, if you think that your £30 will "reduce the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5%", the current evidence does not support your viewpoint.

_

Interesting that you choose to delete the salient points that I made and replace them with the words Yadda Yadda.

What a clever well thought out counter argument.

Idiot.

And where exactly do I say anything about making wearing them compulsory??? As I explained in one of the sections ignored by you there will never be conclusive evidence one way or the other as this would require a randomised controlled trial.

You may be interested to learn that there is also no evidence that wearing a parachute increases safety when jumping out of a plane see:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract ... 2eaa39ff02

But I dont hear people clamouring for them to be abolished.

biondino

Mithras wrote:

Bloody useless things helmets. Went over the bars at about 15-20 mph the other day. Didn't stop me breaking my ribs.....bloody useless things. And I have had to replace it due to the large dent/crack on the outside of it! Waste of sodding time if you ask me.

Were you in uniform, Mithras? I know it's a terrible thing - especially since I too did a bike somersault a fortnight ago and broke my ribs (despite wearing a helmet - rip off city or what!) - but the thought of watching a copper do a 360 off the front of a bike does have an air of comedy to it

always_tyred

Aguila wrote:

Underscore wrote:

Aguila wrote:

Here is some simple physics for the morons who do not wear helmets:

[... yada yada ...]

As for the usual "thats not proof" retort to anecdotes and "there's no evidence" consider this:

[... more yada yada ...]

As someone else put it even if it reduces the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5% I'd pay £30 for that.

OK, I tried to avoid piling back in but, being an eternal optimist, there comes a point where I can't help myself but try to correct someone's ignorance.

These threads always reduce to whether wearing a helmet should be compulsory - either in law or merely to avoid being called names, like in the above post. While I do wear a helmet, I will make a statement, justify it and welcome any considered responses.

Requiring people to wear cycle helmets would make cycling more dangerous

On what basis do I make such an assertion? Two studies: The first was a study of bike accident statistics from before and after cycle helmet use was made compulsory in Australia. The second is the study that shows that the more of the populous cycles, the safer cycling becomes.

The first study showed that making it compulsory to wear a helmet had no effect on the incidence of serious head injuries per km cycled (though there was a reduction in superficial head injuries); however, there was a reduction of about 30% (IIRC) in the total number of km cycled.

So, if making helmet use compulsory doesn't improve safety (as measured by KSIs) but reduces the amount of cycling, and reducing the amount of cycling reduces the safety of cycling, making helmet use compulsory would make cycling more dangerous. Discuss...

Personally, I'll take the reduction in superficial head injuries as a reason to wear one but, if you think that your £30 will "reduce the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5%", the current evidence does not support your viewpoint.

_

Interesting that you choose to delete the salient points that I made and replace them with the words Yadda Yadda.

What a clever well thought out counter argument.

Idiot.

And where exactly do I say anything about making wearing them compulsory??? As I explained in one of the sections ignored by you there will never be conclusive evidence one way or the other as this would require a randomised controlled trial.

You may be interested to learn that there is also no evidence that wearing a parachute increases safety when jumping out of a plane see:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract ... 2eaa39ff02

But I dont hear people clamouring for them to be abolished.

Brilliant.

You may joke, but there was that lady who fell from a plane over a pine forest and landed safely. If she had been wearing a parachute it would have snagged in the trees and prevented her safe landing on the ground and she would have starved to death whilst hidden from rescuers' view in the forest canopy. FACT.

the_hundredth_idiot

Right, who was it who revived this sorry, miserable thread? :evil:

Why couldn't you have left well alone? Did you not realise how it would turn out?

I'm just amazed that nobody has started posting about helmets making some injuries more likely (rotational something or other?) Could someone just post something about that and then we've had it all and can leave this thread alone ... again? :roll:

Cunobelin

PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 2 August 2003, pp. 320-323

Bicycle Helmet Assessment During Well Visits Reveals Severe Shortcomings in Condition and Fit
Gregory W. Parkinson, MD, FAAP and Kelly E. Hike, BA

From Falmouth Pediatric Associates, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Background. Improper bicycle helmet fit increases the risk of head injury.1 Information on the rate of proper use of bicycle helmets is lacking. Promotion of helmet use is recommended at well-child and adolescent visits.2 Actual helmet assessment during such visits has not been reported.

Objectives. The primary goal of this study is to measure the proportion of children whose helmets are in proper condition and can be made to fit properly by the child and/or parent. The secondary goal is to begin to assess the value and practicality of helmet inspection during well-child and adolescent visits.

Methods. The study took place at a private pediatric office in Falmouth, Massachusetts, from June 1 through August 31, 2001. Eligible children and adolescents were those aged 4 to 18 years presenting for well examination, along with siblings present at the visit. Eligible families completed a questionnaire, then had a timed attempt to fit a helmet, followed by an assessment of helmet fit and condition against a predetermined standard.

Results. Eighty-four percent (395/473) of eligible families participated. A total of 479 participants were assessed. Eighty-eight percent of participants (419/478) owned a helmet. Reported helmet use "always" or "almost always" was 73% for bicycling (317/434), 69% for in-line skating (193/279), 58% for scootering (179/310), and 50% for skateboarding (79/158). Compared with younger children, teenagers were less likely to wear helmets for all activities. Complete pass rate for every aspect of condition and fit was 4% (20/478, 95% confidence interval: 3–6). The pass rate when the parent alone fit the helmet was 0% (0/52). Three individual aspects of fit were most problematic: 1) helmet ‘resting position’ too high on the forehead (pass rate 249/479; 52%), 2) improper strap position (pass rate 157/476; 33%), and 3) excessive movement of the helmet from front to back of the head (pass rate 247/479; 52%). Mean time for questionnaire completion was 4 (standard deviation: ±1) minutes, and 7 (standard deviation: ±3) minutes for helmet assessment.

Conclusions. Ninety-six percent of children and adolescents wore helmets in inadequate condition and/or with inadequate fit. This occurred despite a high acceptance of helmet use by this population. Initial evidence suggests that helmet assessment during well visits may be practical and valuable.

Another case of "cosmetic" rather than beneficial helmet wearing?

Underscore

Aguila wrote:

As I explained in one of the sections ignored by you there will never be conclusive evidence one way or the other as this would require a randomised controlled trial.

You can argue whether it is conclusive but the evidence that does exist currently supports the following interpretation:

• Wearing a helmet by an adult cycling on the road has no effect on the risk of suffering a serious head injury
• Wearing a helmet by an adult cycling on the road has a beneficial effect on the risk of suffering a superficial head injury
• Making helmet use compulsory has a significant negative effect on cycle use

Aguila wrote:

And where exactly do I say anything about making wearing them compulsory???

My apologies. I assumed (wrongly) that, by calling those choosing not to wear helmets on the road "morons", you favoured legislation to protect these poor unfortunates from themselves...

_

steve-m

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

steve-m wrote:

Seatbelts are proven to be a help, they work same way as airbags and crumple zones, i.e, the bring you to a halt over a longer period of time reducing impact

(impact = change in momentum / time)

Exactly the thing helmets do not do as there is no travelling distance to slow you down - unless your helmet is several feet thick

I'm not sure that's true. Surely the helmet does mean that your head comes to a halt more slowly? Very simply, helmet hits ground/windscreen/back of car in front and the impact shatters the helmet but also absorbs some of the momentum of the impact. Once the helmet has shattered, the head continues on to hit the object but at a reduced momentum.

Even in a smaller bump where the helmet doesn't (visibly) break, the foam padding inside must surely slow down the speed at which the head inside comes to a halt.

Isn't it exactly the same idea as a crumple zone on a car, just on a much smaller scale?

The effect is so minimal to be negligible with regards reducing the g-forces when coming to a stop, it is the distance added by crumple zones, seat belts combined with airbags etc that are key. The only effect of a helmet is to absorb some energy though not that much to really matter. It is amazing how many people assume a helmet offers anything other than minor protection, so many people come out with "thank god I was wearing a helmet" when their oversized head got hit in a scrape. As as have been asked before, where were all these deaths by head injury before cycling became de-rigeur?

the_hundredth_idiot

steve-m wrote:

The effect is so minimal to be negligible with regards reducing the g-forces when coming to a stop, it is the distance added by crumple zones, seat belts combined with airbags etc that are key. The only effect of a helmet is to absorb some energy though not that much to really matter. It is amazing how many people assume a helmet offers anything other than minor protection, so many people come out with "thank god I was wearing a helmet" when their oversized head got hit in a scrape. As as have been asked before, where were all these deaths by head injury before cycling became de-rigeur?

Nobody is claiming bike helmets would be any good in absorbing the momentum of a 2 ton vehicle travelling at speed. The weight of a human head at up to 12 mph is a different matter.

Even if a helmet doesn't reduce the impact, it will spread the impact - like walking across snow in snow shoes rather than normal shoes.

I think your last question is a bit muddled - are you really asking why cycling head injuries were less common when cycling wasn't so popular? Do you really mean that? I think the answer could be in the question.

This report from the DfT seems pretty comprehensive as it aggregates findings from a number of analyses.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 726?page=3

pllb

For me it comes down to my personal appetite for risk (which is generally low) and what I can do to minimise risk. On a bike there is not a great deal you can do (clothing wise) apart from wearing a helmet. For other less risk averse cyclists it is also a personal choice, this seems a somewhat pointless debate whilst the wearing of helmets is just that "personal choice".

wgwarburton

pllb wrote:

For me it comes down to my personal appetite for risk (which is generally low) and what I can do to minimise risk. On a bike there is not a great deal you can do (clothing wise) apart from wearing a helmet. For other less risk averse cyclists it is also a personal choice, this seems a somewhat pointless debate whilst the wearing of helmets is just that "personal choice".

Indeed, however there's a tendency for helmet-wearers (yourself excluded, clearly) to call people fools, morons, idiots and so on for not wearing them, and to assume that helmets are proven to be useful. The debate usually centres around these issues rather than compulsion, with each group seeking to bring others round to their point of view.

Cheers,
W.

il_principe

Ah this wisdom of buns.

God I could murder a bun. Not you Buns, just a bun, toasted, with butter.

mmmmmmm bunssss..........

biondino

Well you could focus on those who resort to abuse, Buns, or you could concentrate on reasoned and intelligent arguments. I guess the former is easier...

biondino

(who else thinks every time they post on this thread that it'll positively, absolutely be the LAST time they do so?)

salsajake

The last time I posted was the last time I would. DAMN!

Mmmmmmm toast.

il_principe

biondino wrote:

(who else thinks every time they post on this thread that it'll positively, absolutely be the LAST time they do so?)

Me!

But why are the Helmet brigade so bothered by peeps not wearing helmets? I don't get it. I can see people getting annoyed over RLJ, lack of lights etc as this can endanger other people. Me not wearing a helmet (might*) endanger me, but does no harm to any other road user.

*according to some, not me.

And don't give me any guff like "what about your friends and family, selfish yadda yadda"

wgwarburton

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Even if a helmet doesn't reduce the impact, it will spread the impact - like walking across snow in snow shoes rather than normal shoes.

Your faith is touching.

I think your last question is a bit muddled - are you really asking why cycling head injuries were less common when cycling wasn't so popular? Do you really mean that? I think the answer could be in the question.

I think it may be you that is muddled. Cycling has been polular for a long time, with some dips and peaks. There was an upsurge in the 70s and another in the late '80s. Helmet wearing didn't really take off until the '90s and doesn't appera to have had any significant impact on head injury rates.

If cycling without a helmet were as dangerous as some claim, the roads would have been littered with dead or brain-damaged cyclists up to the early 90s, at which point the head injury rate would have dropped significantly. This hasn't happened.

This report from the DfT seems pretty comprehensive as it aggregates findings from a number of analyses.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 726?page=3

It is worth reading it in parallel with the critiques, though:There's a high level summary on cyclehelmets.org and links to two seperate critiques of this work.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

Cheers,
W.

greg66_tri_v2.0

jashburnham wrote:

biondino wrote:

(who else thinks every time they post on this thread that it'll positively, absolutely be the LAST time they do so?)

Me!

But why are the Helmet brigade so bothered by peeps not wearing helmets? I don't get it. I can see people getting annoyed over RLJ, lack of lights etc as this can endanger other people. Me not wearing a helmet (might*) endanger me, but does no harm to any other road user.

*according to some, not me.

And don't give me any guff like "what about your friends and family, selfish yadda yadda"

Me too.

The helmet brigade's ire is fuelled by the fact that brains are well-known to be one of the most slippery substances known to man. So every time one of you daring-do ooh-eer look at me types goes to ground, and splits their head all over the ground like a watermelon dropped off the gerkin, you make a big ol' slippery slidey mess for us socially responsible types.

Not that that presents a danger, obviously, because our helmets render us immune to all forms of physical danger (except banging your shin hard on a coffee table - owww just thinking about it), but because when we slide off, we bash our helmets and have to buy new ones.

See? Your brains cost us money.

How inconsiderate. Honestly. Some people.

biondino

jashburnham wrote:

But why are the Helmet brigade so bothered by peeps not wearing helmets?

It's not that - it's the non-helmet brigade telling US that helmets are at best pointless that bugs us! You can do what you want

DonDaddyD

Helmets are fashion items all helmet wearers are tarts.

All non helmet wearers are tarts for different reasons.

We are all brothers.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

:There's a high level summary on cyclehelmets.org and links to two seperate critiques of this work.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

You were doing so well until this bit.

Its a bit like having a really great date where you have got to the deep philosophical discussion, looking deeping into each other's eyes over the remains of a bottle of red, part, then saying to the girl, "Hey, do you want to borrow my copy of VIS?"

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

:There's a high level summary on cyclehelmets.org and links to two seperate critiques of this work.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

You were doing so well until this bit.

What's your problem with them? The site's a bit pop-science, for sure- but then it's done by amateurs and intended to be accessible. Some of the commentary is questionable, but than that applies to most contributions on the topic, and the research they reference is pretty reasonable. It's not like the pro-helmet lobby is particularly unbiased, either!

Cheers,
W.