Helmet, Yes or No?

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

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.

Its accessible, predominantly misleading and biased. They reference reasonable research and then assure the reader that the summaries are as follows - <insert nonsense>.

Its contributors include journalists, yes, but also some quite well qualified people, some of whom aren't obviously lacking in credibility. As such, the misleading cobblers on the site is dangerous.

Many times its been cited on this forum by persons who appreciate its shortcomings rather less than you do WG.

I'm interested to know why you would think that, for example, that DoT review would be biased. I simply cannot understand why you would imagine that governments and medical bodies around the world which have come to conclusions which differ with yours would be biased, or that any of the studies themselve would be biased. Flawed, perhaps, but not biased. What's the hidden agenda I'm not seeing?

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

[I'm interested to know why you would think that, for example, that DoT review would be biased. I simply cannot understand why you would imagine that governments and medical bodies around the world which have come to conclusions which differ with yours would be biased, or that any of the studies themselve would be biased. Flawed, perhaps, but not biased. What's the hidden agenda I'm not seeing?

Good question, and I'm not convinced that I'm not as guilty as te next guy of seeking out results that match my desired result.

However, I feel that governments would like to "be seen to do something" about cycling casuatlies- promoting helmet wearing is an easy win for a publicity driven organisation. I think that helmet-manufacturers have a clear agenda, and I wonder about the intentions of some (by no means all) "medical" researchers, given the patent foolishness of some of the conclusions that have been drawn from their work in the past (85% of ....).

In general, I am highly suspicious of the "helmet lobby", this may be totally unreasonable, but I feel it's unreasonable to be put into a situation where I have to defend not wearing a helmet (eg to colleagues or parents of my children's friends), given the lack of hard evidence that they are worthwhile.

Cheers,
W.

pllb

WGWarburton wrote:

However, I feel that governments would like to "be seen to do something" about cycling casuatlies- promoting helmet wearing is an easy win for a publicity driven organisation

He speaks the truth - hell of a lot easier than enforcing speed limits, creating cycle paths, stopping drivers using mobiles whilst driving etc etc.

always_tyred

pllb wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

However, I feel that governments would like to "be seen to do something" about cycling casuatlies- promoting helmet wearing is an easy win for a publicity driven organisation

He speaks the truth - hell of a lot easier than enforcing speed limits, creating cycle paths, stopping drivers using mobiles whilst driving etc etc.

All of the driving measures you cite are legally enforcible, whereas helmet use is simply encouraged. As such, the bodies haven't actually done anything or been seen to do anything.

Cycle paths are a whole other can of worms, and in my opinion the great majority of UK cycle facilities are dangerous ill conceived excuses to encourage cyclists off the road and confirm the belief among the general population that cycling and roads don't mix.

I get your point about medical recommendations. For example, the doctor from up here who is proposing a chocolate tax is an idiot and I want half his salary. You don't seem much chocolate in Gregg's, you pompous, vacuous fool. (I feel better for getting that off my chest.)

pllb

Always Tyred wrote:

pllb wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

However, I feel that governments would like to "be seen to do something" about cycling casuatlies- promoting helmet wearing is an easy win for a publicity driven organisation

He speaks the truth - hell of a lot easier than enforcing speed limits, creating cycle paths, stopping drivers using mobiles whilst driving etc etc.

All of the driving measures you cite are legally enforcible, whereas helmet use is simply encouraged. As such, the bodies haven't actually done anything or been seen to do anything.

Cycle paths are a whole other can of worms, and in my opinion the great majority of UK cycle facilities are dangerous ill conceived excuses to encourage cyclists off the road and confirm the belief among the general population that cycling and roads don't mix.

I get your point about medical recommendations. For example, the doctor from up here who is proposing a chocolate tax is an idiot and I want half his salary. You don't seem much chocolate in Gregg's, you pompous, vacuous fool. (I feel better for getting that off my chest.)

Yes I know they are enforceable, but how often do we see drivers being ticketed for using a mobile, traffic police are not much in evidence round here. I think I was trying to say (not very well) is that the government is unlikely to force helmet wearing whilst they are currently unable to enforce speed limits/phone use due to lack of manpower.

CiB

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm interested to know why you would think that, for example, that DoT review would be biased. I simply cannot understand why you would imagine that governments and medical bodies around the world which have come to conclusions which differ with yours would be biased, or that any of the studies themselve would be biased. Flawed, perhaps, but not biased. What's the hidden agenda I'm not seeing?

Considering that we have one of the most draconian, controlling governments in living memory, one that seems determined to micro-manage our lives to the nth degree, enforcing the wearing of helmets is right up their street. It ticks all the boxes - a safety issue, being seen to be be doing something (about a non-existent problem), creates another law that we can be fined for, and can be quietly ignored if & when it suits them so to do (hunting anyone?). And governments don't have an inquiry and then look surprised when it reaches the wrong conclusion. The whole point of any govt inquiry is to provide the evidence that supports the pre-determined conclusion. I'd be more amazed if an inquiry into the potential effects of a new law concluded 'actually this would be a waste of time & money and wouldn't work anyway, so let's drop the idea'.

Me? I wear a helmet when I know I'll be in busy traffic, but for the commute across the back lanes of Buckinghamshire where cars are a rarity and kerbs are unknown I'll take my chances thanks. It's about risk perception, and risk avoidance. 40 miles on a busy A road probably justifies the hat. 20 miles of empty lanes doesn't. London to Brighton did.

salsajake

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm interested to know why you would think that, for example, that DoT review would be biased. I simply cannot understand why you would imagine that governments and medical bodies around the world which have come to conclusions which differ with yours would be biased, or that any of the studies themselve would be biased. Flawed, perhaps, but not biased. What's the hidden agenda I'm not seeing?

Considering that we have one of the most draconian, controlling governments in living memory, one that seems determined to micro-manage our lives to the nth degree, enforcing the wearing of helmets is right up their street. It ticks all the boxes - a safety issue, being seen to be be doing something (about a non-existent problem), creates another law that we can be fined for, and can be quietly ignored if & when it suits them so to do (hunting anyone?). And governments don't have an inquiry and then look surprised when it reaches the wrong conclusion. The whole point of any govt inquiry is to provide the evidence that supports the pre-determined conclusion. I'd be more amazed if an inquiry into the potential effects of a new law concluded 'actually this would be a waste of time & money and wouldn't work anyway, so let's drop the idea'.

Me? I wear a helmet when I know I'll be in busy traffic, but for the commute across the back lanes of Buckinghamshire where cars are a rarity and kerbs are unknown I'll take my chances thanks. It's about risk perception, and risk avoidance. 40 miles on a busy A road probably justifies the hat. 20 miles of empty lanes doesn't. London to Brighton did.

Now that is interesting, someone who sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. So, you must acknowledge that there is a risk of head injury, and you must assume that a helmet will protect you to some extent - personally I am with you on that. You also own a helmet. I am genuinely interested in what you feel is the benefit of NOT wearing it on a particular ride? Is it just 'wind in the hair'? If so, that is fine by me, I'm not having a go, just interested!

CiB

salsajake wrote:

Now that is interesting, someone who sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. So, you must acknowledge that there is a risk of head injury, and you must assume that a helmet will protect you to some extent - personally I am with you on that. You also own a helmet. I am genuinely interested in what you feel is the benefit of NOT wearing it on a particular ride? Is it just 'wind in the hair'? If so, that is fine by me, I'm not having a go, just interested!

Like I said = risk perception, risk avoidance. I don't wear a welding mask to fry bacon even though I know it can spit and get in my eyes. I don't wear a boilersuit, helmet & goggles on the odd occasion that I have to get the rods down our drains to clear a blockage (watch for neighbours who chuck those cotton ear buds down the loo. They store up problems...). Etc. In my world, the risk of falling off on the way to work is negligible, and the risk of having an RTA in which a helmet would make any difference is off my radar so not worth bothering with. I may well be wrong, but in 40 years of riding and falling off bikes I've been okay so far, and I'm happy with that decision.

Conversely, sometimes I ride some distance that also means being on a busy trunk road for a length of time,so I'll wear a helmet on there - the risk is greater, it keeps the wife happy, or at least happier, and suppresses aggro from other road users who don't believe that a cyclist can use an A road. Same with L2B - the chance of coming a cropper is high, esp as my approach when I did it was to beat my previous time, and trying to do it quickly when the roads are jammed with Sunday cyclists is asking for trouble so I wear the hat mainly because I half-expect to come off. That's the difference.

The only proper falls that I've had would have had the same outcome with the helmet. One was me T-boning a car on a roundabout, where I landed with all my weight on my index finger and bent it sideways (ouch), the other on a new bike with the brakes the other way round, did an emergency stop, sailed over the bars and scraped half my face off from the jaw to the about level with the middle of my nose. All involved (Police, nurses, g/f at the time) offered the opinion that unless the helmet had had a 4" overhang at the front the outcome would have been the same.

Why don't I always wear one? I don't like them, that's all. I don't like to wear something extra that in my view doesn't give me any benefit in my real-world day-to-day cycling activities, where I might see half a dozen cars on my 20 mile commute.

salsajake

half a dozen cars in 20 miles - the lack of cars makes the distance do-able!

Good work. I pass 20 cars in half a dozen seconds in Birmingham...

biondino

WGWarburton wrote:

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?

If you want a reasoned overview on immigration do you read the Daily Mail?

biondino

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm interested to know why you would think that, for example, that DoT review would be biased. I simply cannot understand why you would imagine that governments and medical bodies around the world which have come to conclusions which differ with yours would be biased, or that any of the studies themselve would be biased. Flawed, perhaps, but not biased. What's the hidden agenda I'm not seeing?

Considering that we have one of the most draconian, controlling governments in living memory

You're not a miner or trade unionist, then?

wgwarburton

biondino wrote:

If you want a reasoned overview on immigration do you read the Daily Mail?

That's a poor analogy. I'm sure you can do better.

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

My conclusion:

Like a car airbag in car accidents, helmets do not protect you from all injuries encountered on a bike.

However, like an airbag it does reduce the risk of injuries and increase safety in a number of scenarios.

In other scenarios a helmet, like an airbag, can actually cause more harm but these are very rare instances and do not outweigh the benefits of wearing one.

itboffin

DonDaddyD wrote:

My conclusion:

Like a car airbag in car accidents, helmets do not protect you from all injuries encountered on a bike.

However, like an airbag it does reduce the risk of injuries and increase safety in a number of scenarios.

In other scenarios a helmet, like an airbag, can actually cause more harm but these are very rare instances and do not outweigh the benefits of wearing one.

I have to disagree with the airbag comment, last year when I span and I think rolled my BMW those small but perfectly formed side impact airbags saved me from hitting the pillar.

Go airbags, RIP BMW

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't think its incorrect in saying that:
..... <snip snip....>
In other scenarios a helmet, like an airbag, can actually cause more harm but these are very rare instances and do not outweigh the benefits of wearing one.

I do (think it's incorrect to say that).

There are a couple of very telling observations. The first is that studies in Oz & New Zealand, where helmet wearing was made compulsory, don't show the expected drop in head injuries that would result if there was a benefit.

The second (more personally) is that there are a number of groups ("The Helmet Lobby") who are keen to see helmets universally adopted. Politicians would like to be able to take credit for improving public safety, helmet makers would like to sell more of them and the medical profession would like a cheap measure that reduces head injuries.
Despite these various groups (some of them well-funded) trying hard to prove that helmet-wearing is beneficial over a twenty-odd year period they have singularly failed to do so. I think this speaks volumes.

This is, BTW, the main reason I take part in these threads!

Cheers,
W.

prawny

I'm thinking about ditching my helmet on occasion for a fancy racer cap. What's happening to me?!

When I started this commuting lark I said to my self baggies t'shirt and back pack, now i'm gettnig a carradice sqr so i can get energy gels in me jersey pockets :roll:

greg66_tri_v2.0

WGWarburton wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't think its incorrect in saying that:
..... <snip snip....>
In other scenarios a helmet, like an airbag, can actually cause more harm but these are very rare instances and do not outweigh the benefits of wearing one.

I do (think it's incorrect to say that).

There are a couple of very telling observations. The first is that studies in Oz & New Zealand, where helmet wearing was made compulsory, don't show the expected drop in head injuries that would result if there was a benefit.

The second (more personally) is that there are a number of groups ("The Helmet Lobby") who are keen to see helmets universally adopted. Politicians would like to be able to take credit for improving public safety, helmet makers would like to sell more of them and the medical profession would like a cheap measure that reduces head injuries.
Despite these various groups (some of them well-funded) trying hard to prove that helmet-wearing is beneficial over a twenty-odd year period they have singularly failed to do so. I think this speaks volumes.

This is, BTW, the main reason I take part in these threads!

Cheers,
W.

I don't follow you. The proposition you're advancing is that helmets can cause more harm (than no helmet) in rare circumstances.

The two reasons to set out don't address this proposition. They support the proposition that helmets don't give safety benefits, not that they create a source of danger.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

biondino wrote:

If you want a reasoned overview on immigration do you read the Daily Mail?

That's a poor analogy. I'm sure you can do better.

Cheers,
W.

Why is it a poor analogy? If you assume that the Mail is a rag with a thinly disguised agenda, its perfect.

How about; its like looking for a critique of Manchester United's performance on Liverpool's website on Monday? Better, similar?

wgwarburton

Greg66 wrote:

I don't follow you. The proposition you're advancing is that helmets can cause more harm (than no helmet) in rare circumstances.
The two reasons to set out don't address this proposition. They support the proposition that helmets don't give safety benefits, not that they create a source of danger.

No, the proposition I'm advancing is that the the benefits don't appear to outweigh whatever downsides there might be. Whether that's because they don't actually help at all or because they shift the balance of injuries in some way I don't know (It appears no-one does).
DDD asserts a specific point- any increase in risk is outweighed by the overall gain. I think that isn't proven, though I don't know if thats because there isn't a gain or the risk is bigger than predicted... or that there's some other factor altogether.

Cheers,
W.

Sewinman

F****** H***! Why don't you anti-helmet chaps go and do some experiments - stick a helmet on your bonce and headbutt the pavement - as hard as you can. The take the helmet off and do it again. Report back on how you feel.

linsen

Helmets

Surely people should be able to do what they like?

If it only hurts the person who makes the choice, then it is up to them.

<skulks off>

always_tyred

linsen wrote:

Helmets

Surely people should be able to do what they like?

If it only hurts the person who makes the choice, then it is up to them.

<skulks off>

Linsen. Its dangerous in this thread - high risk of brain injury. No place for a woman (unless you are wearing a helmet).

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

No, the proposition I'm advancing is that the the benefits don't appear to outweigh whatever downsides there might be. ...<<<snip>>....

DDD asserts a specific point- any increase in risk is outweighed by the overall gain. I think that isn't proven ...<<snip>>...

Hang on,

Are you are actually saying that it's more dangerous to wear a helmet than not to wear a helmet?

Or are you saying that there is no increase to safety (in this case protection from head injuries) whether wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet?

Either way, wow just wow.

Rich158

linsen wrote:

Helmets

Surely people should be able to do what they like?

If it only hurts the person who makes the choice, then it is up to them.
<skulks off>

Don't forget your loved ones who have to care for you when your in a PVS due to brain injury, and the NHS who has to pay for your continuing care




ducks for cover

DonDaddyD

F****** H***! Why don't you anti-helmet chaps go and do some experiments - stick a helmet on your bonce and headbutt the pavement - as hard as you can. The take the helmet off and do it again. Report back on how you feel.

+1

My kind oif logic.

Sometimes I feel that the naysayers are trying to be too clever for their own good.

greg66_tri_v2.0

WGWarburton wrote:

DDD asserts a specific point- any increase in risk is outweighed by the overall gain. I think that isn't proven, though I don't know if thats because there isn't a gain or the risk is bigger than predicted... or that there's some other factor altogether.

No, that isn't his point. His point is that in rare circumstances helmets do more harm than good, but overall they do more good than harm.

Your supporting material attacks the second half of this point - and suggests that overall they don't do much good. That material doesn't speak to the first half (that there is a rare increased risk).

But your seem to be agreeing with all of DDD's proposition, including the first half, for which there's no support.

Now, if you don't really think that helmets can, on rare occasions, do more harm than good, all this is immaterial. OTOH, if that is your position what's to support it (other than the silly quasi-anecdotal study that concludes that drivers pass closer to helmet riders than non-helmet riders)?

Rich158

My feelings exactly DDD, if you asked me to fall off my chair head first onto a concrete floor, common sense dictates that the blow to my head is going to be lessened by wearing a helmet - any sort of helmet. Any injuries certainly aren't going to be made worse by wearing one.

wgwarburton

Rich158 wrote:

My feelings exactly DDD, if you asked me to fall off my chair head first onto a concrete floor, common sense dictates that the blow to my head is going to be lessened by wearing a helmet - any sort of helmet. Any injuries certainly aren't going to be made worse by wearing one.

Yes, but apparantly the real world of cycling is more complicated than that.

Cheers,
W.

pllb

Much as I am trying to ignore it, this thread really amazes me. When I was 13 (some 27 years ago) I was involved in a major accident, I was on my bike when the brakes failed causing me to ride out infront of a car moving at pace. The bike was bent almost at 45 degrees at the BB by the impact, both ankles broken and I was thrown to the other side of the road via the bonnet then windscreen of the car (windscreen was shattered by impact). I have no recollection if I hit my head but i did have a tiny cut on my ear. Now I wear a helmet (JIC), however why people try an force their opinions on others is beyond me.

wgwarburton

Greg66 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

DDD asserts a specific point- any increase in risk is outweighed by the overall gain. I think that isn't proven, though I don't know if thats because there isn't a gain or the risk is bigger than predicted... or that there's some other factor altogether.

No, that isn't his point. His point is that in rare circumstances helmets do more harm than good, but overall they do more good than harm.

Your supporting material attacks the second half of this point - and suggests that overall they don't do much good. That material doesn't speak to the first half (that there is a rare increased risk).

Yes. A population study doesn't identify the source of the issue, only the outcome.

But your seem to be agreeing with all of DDD's proposition, including the first half, for which there's no support.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this. I am not addressing his claim that helmets may do more harm than good in some circumstances- That may be true (indeed it seems likely, given that it is probable that they provide benefits in others) but it's unproven, I believe.

Overall there appears to be no significant safety benefit to wearing a helmet. That could be for several reasons- for example the benefit may be smaller than expected or it may be outweighed by a larger than anticipated risk of serious injuries. Perhaps the helmet issue is confounded by another factor (risk compensation? driver behavior? effect on reaction times? who knows?).

Now, if you don't really think that helmets can, on rare occasions, do more harm than good, all this is immaterial. OTOH, if that is your position what's to support it (other than the silly quasi-anecdotal study that concludes that drivers pass closer to helmet riders than non-helmet riders)?

It's the balance point that concerns me. If helmets provided an overall improvement in safety, that would surely show up in the antipodean population studies?
It doesn't, and that leads me to question his claim that overall they do more good than harm.

(sorry- I'm rushing this response, hope it's OK!)

Cheers,
W.