Helmet, Yes or No?

linsen

Rich158 wrote:

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

I know. And FTR, I always wear a helmet, and so do my children.

There has to be an element of free will in the world though - otherwise make it illegal to smoke, do dangerous sports, cross the road etc etc etc

Rich158

WGWarburton wrote:

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.

True, but in my simple mind I have to simply things in order to understand them.

I must admit I don't understand the issue regarding a helmet making rotational injuries worse. I wear a full face helmet when mountain biking, and have crashed at many different speeds in many different ways, including very many trips over the handle bars at speed. I've never suffered a rotational injury despit the helmet being many times heavier than my light weight road helmet. When I have crashed on my road bike I've never thought that wearing a helmet potentially made the situation worse.

Now I fully support anyones right not to wear a helmet, it's a matter of personal choice, but I do resent being told I'm a fool for doing so as they offer no tangible benefits.

wgwarburton

Rich158 wrote:

Now I fully support anyones right not to wear a helmet, it's a matter of personal choice, but I do resent being told I'm a fool for doing so as they offer no tangible benefits.

Is anyone doing this? I don't recall seeing that posted.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

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

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?).

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.

Worth making the distinction between a specific type of event and the overall influence on that type of event in a population study. I think that there is a danger of somehow arguing that because the "being hit over the head with/without a helmet" scenario does not show up as reduced injury rates in population figures, helmets are no good in protecting from being hit over the head. Clearly they are, clearly there are measurements of this (involving head shaped anvils and accelerometers). The questions as to how likely this is to be replicated in a cycling accident and/or how other factors interact with this effect is entirely different and should not be confused.

I can't really say that I read the AU and NZ studies particularly carefully, but I have seen commentaries on these an others that cite a datum before and after the date of effective legislation, and base arguments on this.

You would effect a blip of some sort following a new piece of legislation and I have seen other commentaries which argue that the oft cited negative effect following legislation evens out over time. I'm also not familiar with many/any attempts to extrapolate, interpret or eliminate longer term trends (in, for example, the level of cycling, or the level of traffic, or the type of traffic). The best attempts seem to be fairly linear - by which I mean, for example, that the effect of traffic density on cycling safety (or number of cyclists) is assumed to be one of a direct proportionality. Its at least very possible that small increments in traffic density correspond to larger increases in cycling accident rates. For each of these interrelationships (number of cyclists being another) you would have to attempt to measure the actual relationship in order to eliminate the effect. When I think of the problem in these terms, I can't help but feel that there are far more variables than data points and that so many assumptions are made as to render any conclusions meaningless.

From dim memory, there is also the British Columbia case, which I thought actually DID show a benefit following the introduction of a law and which did show that the helmet uptake (which occurred most rapidly in the preceding years) did correlate with a decrease in head injuries. I had thought that it was also possible to see in this study that the temporary dip in number of cycling journeys had disappeared after a few years once everyone got used to the idea and stopped being stroppy.

Characteristicaly, cyclelemets.org took the data and interpreted it on the basis that helmet usage immediately before was at a low value and immediately after was 80+%. If you took the previous two years' data, and put them together, and the two before that, to get a picture of a gradual uptake during a period that people knew there was going to be a law coming into force and took advantage of 50% government subsidy on helmets (which vanished once the law came into place) all of their conclusions flip around.

Rich158

WGWarburton wrote:

Rich158 wrote:

Now I fully support anyones right not to wear a helmet, it's a matter of personal choice, but I do resent being told I'm a fool for doing so as they offer no tangible benefits.

Is anyone doing this? I don't recall seeing that posted.

Cheers,
W.

Possibly not, tbh honest I couldn't be arsed to read through 20 pages or so of largely circular arguments and made a broad assumption that someone at some stage must have made such an assertion.

Underscore

WGWarburton wrote:

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.

Hmm, this reminds me of chat that I had with someone 5 or so years ago about a study that they had read (Yes, I know that is like saying "a friend or a friend's girlfriend's brother" but bear with me). What it claimed to have determined was that, although helmets do reduce the energy transferred to the skull, there was a physiological difference to the resulting injuries.

Specifically, helmets caused a greater incidence of rotational head injuries, whereas those without helmets tended to suffer more from direct impact type injuries. If this is the case, it would certainly explain why helmet use may not be producing the reduction in serious head injuries that one might expect - even I know that the brain is much more susceptible to rotational injury than linear injury so the reduction in energy due to the helmet could well be balanced out by the change in stress on the brain.

Just a thought,

_

Rich158

hmm, not convinced. If that was the case I'd have definately suffered some form of rotational injury in my many MTB crashes, heavier helmet, ragdolling down the hill side etc would lead to far greater rotational stresses.

On the other hand maybe I have, I just don't know it yet :?

tbh road helmets are so light that I would imagine their effect would be negligible. What is more likely to cause injury is a poorly fitting helmet, which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other after an accident.

always_tyred

Rich158 wrote:

tbh road helmets are so light that I would imagine their effect would be negligible. What is more likely to cause injury is a poorly fitting helmet, which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other after an accident.

Although a couple of pages back, there was an interesting post about the high percentage of poorly fitting helmets.....

wgwarburton

Rich158 wrote:

hmm, not convinced. If that was the case I'd have definately suffered some form of rotational injury in my many MTB crashes, heavier helmet, ragdolling down the hill side etc would lead to far greater rotational stresses.
tbh road helmets are so light that I would imagine their effect would be negligible. What is more likely to cause injury is a poorly fitting helmet, which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other after an accident.

I don't think you are understanding the mechanism that causes this type of injury. Weight isn't the factor, so much as size and surface characteristics.

The argument is that a helmet may change a "glancing blow" to the head into significant rotational acceleration. Imagine, for example, that you are knocked off on a fast descent (diesel fairy? bad driver? whatever).
When you strike the ground you instinctively protect your head, and slide to a stop. If your head hits the ground, it is likely that it will be a glancing blow with a "linear deceleration"- hair is an effective "lubricant" in this situation, and your skin can slide over the surface of the skull, mitigating the twisting force.
In the same scenario with a helmet on, your "head" is bigger, so your instincts are less well honed- your body doesn't automatically account for the extra couple of inches of material around your head, so you are more likely to hit the ground with your helmet.
Having done so, the surface of the helmet is more likely to catch the ground and stop, and when it does so, it has the added leverage of the thickness of the helmet, so your skull may experience a short, but very rapid rotation. This is a "rotational injury" and is thought to be associated with more serious brain injuries than simple bangs to the head.

I have no medical training etc. and I don't know how likely this is. There are a couple of studies around that suggest it may be significant but who knows....?

Cheers,
W.

salsajake

Maybe I should lube my helmet (as it were), or glue hair onto it, then I would have the best of both worlds?

roger_merriman

with diesel perhaps?

cee

so these rotational brain injuries are really head rotation injuries....not the brain rotating inside the skull?

I think AT might have spotted the most salient point in the entire thread. How many helmet wearers have a helmet that fits them well and knows how to wear it properly....

I have seen loads of folks with it perched on the back of their skulls with a big bit of forehead sticking out the front!

dilemna

This topic has now become boring. If you wear a helmet you can be righteous in your increased level of safety; if you don't wear one then you can be smug in the fact that you are exercising your right to choose not to be sucked into the quick sand of health and safety.

wgwarburton

dilemna wrote:

... If you wear a helmet you can be righteous in your increased level of safety.. .

Whoosh!

Please pay attention.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

dilemna wrote:

This topic has now become boring. If you wear a helmet you can be righteous in your increased level of safety; if you don't wear one then you can be smug in the fact that you are exercising your right to choose not to be sucked into the quick sand of health and safety.

Don't press the button on your mouse when the cursor is over the thread title then!

"Dear Points of View,
This evening I intently watched three days of the worst......"

joesmigger

ive benn cycling for around 5 years now and my wife recently took up cycling, . I have insisted that she wears a helmet.
I work ina specialust Neuro Hospital as a Scrub nurse and although we dont have a great numbers of emergencies caused by cycling accidents I can comfortably say that im vastly more confident that my wife wont be one of them.

In my experience, and i appreciate its localised to the extreme cases, wearing a helmet is literally the difference between and death.

desweller

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Of course, it wouldn't have needed to be resurrected if it had been wearing a helmet in the first place...

ndru

Must not reply, must not reply, must not reply....

salsajake

I'm amazed that they had to go back 2 years to find this topic to reply to!

CiB

How quaint. Joesmigger has signed up and with his first post has resurrected this old chestnut by informing us how he orders his wife around when she's doing something quite ordinary and safe. I hope you make her wear a helmet and full PPSE around the house; after all most accidents happen at home I believe. Glad I'm not married to you, and not just because you're also a bloke.

Nice one JoeSmigger. Hand me the popcorn someone.

rjsterry

All the dust is making me sneeze.

DonDaddyD

I can't even remember making this thread.

I still stand by my assertion that there are circumstances helmets do more harm than good, but overall they do more good than harm.

Edit: I'm not JoeSmigger

EKE_38BPM

I'm about to go downstairs. Must remember my safety harness, full PPE (including condom, you never know what might happen), walkie talkie to summon help if necessary and 10p to phone my Mum. As a kid she always told me to carry change in case I needed to phone home.

Dammit, I've posted to a helmet thread.

notsoblue

joesmigger wrote:

I work ina specialust Neuro Hospital as a Scrub nurse and ... we dont have a great numbers (sic) of emergencies caused by cycling accidents

Indeed.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

IAs a kid she always told me to carry change in case I needed to phone home.

This! Then the one time I really needed to phone home I reversed the charges. When I did get home I realised that the danger was probably worth facing.

Now my brother has a Blackberry, contract phone (as it's cheaper than pay as you go because he uses all the credit) paid for by my Dad.

How thing change.

greg66_tri_v2.0

The only people who don't think helmets should be compulsory are those who've already fallen off not wearing one and have irreversible brain damage.

FACT!

shouldbeinbed

joesmigger wrote:

ive benn cycling for around 5 years now and my wife recently took up cycling, . I have insisted that she wears a helmet.
I work ina specialust Neuro Hospital as a Scrub nurse and although we dont have a great numbers of emergencies caused by cycling accidents I can comfortably say that im vastly more confident that my wife wont be one of them.

In my experience, and i appreciate its localised to the extreme cases, wearing a helmet is literally the difference between and death.

Great start and hell of a zombie thread to pick. Your next post on here shoud be in praise of hybrids, then a quick trip to pro race to tell them how misunderstood Lance Armstrong is and then nip over to mountain bikes and ask them if they wouldn't be happier on a nice drop handlebarred skinny wheeled speed machine rather than their chunky old bangers, after that you could suggest to Louis Farakhan and Geert Wilders that they might be up for a cover version of Ebony & Ivory

jzed

I always wear one - personal choice - not fussed whether others (close family excluded) wear helmets or not.

salsajake

I always wear one but don't think they should be compulsory. I have never worn body armour at an mtb centre but notice that people increasingly are. I even took to wearing a a helmet last time I went snowboarding, but all a personal choice and didn't bother me one jot whether others were or weren't, just like when someone goes past on a bike with an old-school cloth cap on. Fair play, everyone knows the risks, some people don't care but that is up to them. Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

EKE_38BPM

salsajake wrote:

Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

This