Helmet, Yes or No?

Nuggs

tiny_pens wrote:

leshark wrote:

This makes me laugh, more children die on bicycles than any other singular reason.

Thats an interesting statistic. Do you know where it came from?

I'm suprised that more children aren't killed by cars. This is implied as a dangerous risk by all of the government television ads.

No - more children are killed by global warming than any other single reason...

msw

The argument I've heard is that when they fail they fail catastrophically and absorb far less energy than when it is within limits.

They still absorb more energy than my hair though, so it's helmets all the way for me, though I don't really feel strongly either way about whether they should be compulsory. Probably not.

I feel like I've still to hear a convincing argument about how wearing a helmet could make you less safe, apart from that one experiment that about motorists passing closer to helmeted riders - or rather to one particular helmeted rider, the experimenter. That sounds a bit rough and ready to me though...

ride_whenever

well it was a social psycology experiment, it isn't exactly going to be scientifically rigorous now is it, it is more likely to be hand-wavey and vague, see:

Cunobelin

Nuggs wrote:

tiny_pens wrote:

leshark wrote:

This makes me laugh, more children die on bicycles than any other singular reason.

Thats an interesting statistic. Do you know where it came from?

I'm suprised that more children aren't killed by cars. This is implied as a dangerous risk by all of the government television ads.

No - more children are killed by global warming than any other single reason...

This is one of the great BHIT myths.... They claimed a child a week died of head injuries due to cycling. In 2000 the actual number was.........3, they included all road deaths an implied they were head injury related cycling!


Problem is because the figures are convenient they were used by Martlett et al in Parliament which gave these absurd exaggerations a credibility theydon't deserve, and hence they are still widely quoted.

Alan Meale MP is recorded in Hansard:

That this House notes that every year in the UK approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16 years receive a serious head injury as a result of a cycling accident and that sadly a number die as a result, whilst for many others their accident will have a devastating impact on their life, in many cases restricting their abilities to develop, learn new skills, make new friends and face the lifelong challenges of the world; recognises that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of such head injuries could be prevented; commends the excellent campaign of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust to get Parliament to introduce legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by all bicyclists in the UK; and calls upon her Majesty's Government to give its full support to such a proposal which would both save lives and stop injuries on our roads.

Shame it is totally untrue the total for ALL head injuries in children was less than a tenth of this!

Which is why you get the figures that cycling is so dangerous for children, over inflated propaganda!

leshark

What I was trying to say (which has really been said) istwo things, no would (I hope) allow their children to go out on a bike without a helmet(1) and that I am fine with the Idea that the helmet will save me below 12 mph (which I believe to be untrue),.

I have had accidents on cycles and motorcycles, 4 of which I can say, without doubt would have killed me or given me irreparable brain damage, I regularly took/take risks on both and exceed the recommended possible impact speed of both cycle and motorcycle helmets (should I crash at such). But the reason I have had accidents I can sum up to two things, other road users and loss of concentration, one is out of my control and the other only ever happens at lowish speeds anyway.

There is a key phrase that I heard once that I apply to these scenarios, "Unnecessary Risks" you could say riding a bike is an unnecessary risk (I think not) but just in that statement there is the suggestion that there is "Necessary risks", can anyone say they think it is wise to ride a motorcycle in shorts and a T-Shirt? yet riding a cycle without head protections is okay!

Last (and Final) Comment, this debate could go on forever. Safe riding folks (with or without protection).

leshark

No, let common sense prevail, regulating would not sort this, it would only make criminals of good honest people, and would probably create a situation where a lot of cyclist wear ill fitting helmets, there may be space for regulating minors (not the under ground ones) wearing them though.

I am definitely not for the nanny state, but feel some children need protecting (mostly from their parents).

teulk

I always wear a helmet, i would however guess that the majority of cylcling injuires would be lower body as im guessing most cyclists are injured via a collision with a vehicle. One of the first days out on my bike i got knocked off at a really slow speed at a junction but as i fell i hit my head on some metal railings............i am in no doubt that wearing a helmet saved me from a nasty blow to my head - im sure people have died from what would seem a relatively no serious blow to the head.

dirk_van_gently

Did Someone mentioned the "H" word ?
3 pages of pointless postings, and a rather nice cartoon.
Mr Moderator,may I suggest there is a sticky thread for the "H" discussion?

biondino

Actually this seems to be a pretty civil and well-informed helmet debate.

il_principe

Helmet debate?

*fetches pillow.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

AndyManc

I've got 4 helmets ... 2 giro flak ( piss pot ) helmets , great value and fit , that I don't mind wearing during the winter , keeps me dry and warm,

I've also just bought a giro hex , comfortable and looks half decent and a specialized one that is a crap fit and has been chucked under the stairs.

I dont mind wearing them , they don't affect my riding whatsoever.

jam1ec

I've seen loads of reasons helmets aren't perfect but nothing of any value to suggest they make things worse.

There is that passing distance study, which although has good intentions, people seem to draw false conclusions from. There is also the rotational brain thing which i've still to be convinced of due to lack of information surrounding it.

I also don't buy the 12 mph number incidents outside of lab test conditions. However if it is true those of you in london would be advised to get a helmet anyway:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 674963.ece

the only good reason i can see not to wear one is the inconvenience of what to do with it when you arrive at your destination. I suspect for most that would be an excuse rather than a reason though.

I don't think it effects my riding and it is not uncomfortable in any way.

my conclusions:
Helmets - YES
law to enforce adults wearing them - NO

Bikerbaboon

I need to wear a helemt all the time to save my self from brain damage from smacking my head against the desk at every "hemet Yes or no" thread :shock:

AndyManc

AndyManc wrote:

I've got 4 helmets ... 2 giro flak ( wee-wee pot ) helmets , great value and fit , that I don't mind wearing during the winter , keeps me dry and warm,

I've also just bought a giro hex , comfortable and looks half decent and a specialized one that is a crap fit and has been chucked under the stairs.

I dont mind wearing them , they don't affect my riding whatsoever.

I'll just point out ... I did not type ..wee-wee pot , I wrote the more obvious name ... but it changed .. as if by magic :P

iarocu

jam1ec wrote:

I've seen loads of reasons helmets aren't perfect but nothing of any value to suggest they make things worse.

Risk Compensation. Helmet wearers feel safer so take more risks. Since helmets provide only limited protection it doesn't take much extra risk to cancel that protection out.

I don't wear a helmet If they made a huge difference population level studies would show it. They don't.

http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_20.html



r

STEFANOS4784

Non- sense , i would rather my cpu be run over with polystyrene than with-out, at least then it's got a small chance :!: :!: :!:

STEFANOS4784

Also, as a reply to some previous posts, most children die from mal-nutrition/starvation than anything else, so there :P

jedster

Just back after 2 weeks hols without the internet. Good to see that some things never change!

Recent experience has made me more pro-helmet although I'm not in favour of compulsion.

Until recently, I too had been rather sceptical about hw much benefit helmets provide for the reason others have given:

However, I'm still sceptical about the effectiveness of helmets. There seems to be a big discrepancy between case studies and whole population studies (in countries that have compulsory helmet wearing). If helmets were so effective, it should have shown up in injury statistics by now. While the jury is still out I shall continue to wear my helmet...

I tended to the view that risk compensation (riding more aggressively) was offsetting the modest benefits from wearing a helmet.

I still wore a helmet because I felt a) it could make minor accidents less unpleasant and b) I was arrogant enough to think I could keep a lid (sorry) on risk compensation.

However, a couple of weeks ago I had an off on a diesel spill (I posted a thread called "extra buttock" or something - the most spectacular injury was a HUGE haematoma on my right hip) - a minor change of direction at 22mph led to my front wheel skidding and I hit the deck almost instantaneously. I landed on my hip, shoulder and right temple. The blow to my head broke my glasses which cut my forehead which was glued up in A&E. It also compressed and cracked my helmet over my temple. I was a bit dazed after and had a mild headache but no lasting concussion.

I think this incident is interesting for a number of reasons:

1. I think this kind of accident could happen to anyone. I was not riding aggressively. I don't think I made any mistakes that were avoidable. Perhaps it is very unusual but I have heard of several similar accidents
2. I was travelling at 22mph - i.e., much more than 12 mph. Of course this does not mean that my head hit the ground at 22 mph. This seems to me to be the reason that the "helmets don't work above 12 mph" argument is a complete red herring.
3. I don't know how bad the head injury would have been without the (now ex-) helmet but given the damage to the helmet/glasses/size of the haematoma and the fact that I seem to have cracked a rib, it feels like it was a fairly hefty blow. I'm really glad I didn't find out.

Given all that, I've lost my scepticism.

It seems to me that if I was a helmet non-wearer reading my post I could challenge the conclusion that it makes a strong argument for wearing a helmet on perhaps three grounds:

1. the story might have been made up or a half truth (i.e., I'm exaggerating the force of the impact, I was actually riding irresponsibly). Can't prove anything here of course. I've tried to be as balanced as possible
2. although this is a real example of how a helmet really helped it was a freak accident that is not worth protecting against
3. the dangers of helmet wearing (risk compensation, rotational injuries) outweigh the benefit of protecting against this kind of accident

Obviously I dont believe 1 is valid. I don't really think that diesel spills are that unusual so I discount 2. Seems to me that the third point is an open question.

A couple of other points/anecdotes:

I have had three others spills in the last 4 years. Two were turning hard right at junctions on slippery roads (one wet leaves, the other clay left by construction trucks). These were low speed rear wheel slides. In both I gently scraped my helmet on the road. The scrapes were sufficiently minor that I dont thing a bare head would have touched the road. I reckon the helmet did me no good but no harm. The other was a glancing collision with a black cab which left me tumbling down the road at about 18mph. My helmet didn't hit anything. Conclusion - helmets are irrelevant in plenty of accidents.

I'm having some physio (the haematoma is very slowly draining down my leg causing brusing and stiffness as far as my calf). THe physio has worked as an A&E nurse and is a keen cyclist. I told her that I had been sceptical about helmets she said a couple of thinks that were interesting to me:
1. she had seen bodies in A&E which would have still been people if they had been wearing helmets. She said that in some cases a fall as low as 10mph can kill if the head strikes something hard directly - she has seen people who have hit flints or chalks and died
2. She said "would you have been brain damaged without your helmet? Maybe not badly but low level damage can happen quite easily and can be very serious if short-term memory loss or a lack of concentration effects your job"

Of course, all of this is just anecdotal and doesn't prove anything but I'll be wearing my helmet when I'm fit to get back on the bike.

J

jedster

Just back after 2 weeks hols without the internet. Good to see that some things never change!

Recent experience has made me more pro-helmet although I'm not in favour of compulsion.

Until recently, I too had been rather sceptical about hw much benefit helmets provide for the reason others have given:

However, I'm still sceptical about the effectiveness of helmets. There seems to be a big discrepancy between case studies and whole population studies (in countries that have compulsory helmet wearing). If helmets were so effective, it should have shown up in injury statistics by now. While the jury is still out I shall continue to wear my helmet...

I tended to the view that risk compensation (riding more aggressively) was offsetting the modest benefits from wearing a helmet.

I still wore a helmet because I felt a) it could make minor accidents less unpleasant and b) I was arrogant enough to think I could keep a lid (sorry) on risk compensation.

However, a couple of weeks ago I had an off on a diesel spill (I posted a thread called "extra buttock" or something - the most spectacular injury was a HUGE haematoma on my right hip) - a minor change of direction at 22mph led to my front wheel skidding and I hit the deck almost instantaneously. I landed on my hip, shoulder and right temple. The blow to my head broke my glasses which cut my forehead which was glued up in A&E. It also compressed and cracked my helmet over my temple. I was a bit dazed after and had a mild headache but no lasting concussion.

I think this incident is interesting for a number of reasons:

1. I think this kind of accident could happen to anyone. I was not riding aggressively. I don't think I made any mistakes that were avoidable. Perhaps it is very unusual but I have heard of several similar accidents
2. I was travelling at 22mph - i.e., much more than 12 mph. Of course this does not mean that my head hit the ground at 22 mph. This seems to me to be the reason that the "helmets don't work above 12 mph" argument is a complete red herring.
3. I don't know how bad the head injury would have been without the (now ex-) helmet but given the damage to the helmet/glasses/size of the haematoma and the fact that I seem to have cracked a rib, it feels like it was a fairly hefty blow. I'm really glad I didn't find out.

Given all that, I've lost my scepticism.

It seems to me that if I was a helmet non-wearer reading my post I could challenge the conclusion that it makes a strong argument for wearing a helmet on perhaps three grounds:

1. the story might have been made up or a half truth (i.e., I'm exaggerating the force of the impact, I was actually riding irresponsibly). Can't prove anything here of course. I've tried to be as balanced as possible
2. although this is a real example of how a helmet really helped it was a freak accident that is not worth protecting against
3. the dangers of helmet wearing (risk compensation, rotational injuries) outweigh the benefit of protecting against this kind of accident

Obviously I dont believe 1 is valid. I don't really think that diesel spills are that unusual so I discount 2. Seems to me that the third point is an open question.

A couple of other points/anecdotes:

I have had three others spills in the last 4 years. Two were turning hard right at junctions on slippery roads (one wet leaves, the other clay left by construction trucks). These were low speed rear wheel slides. In both I gently scraped my helmet on the road. The scrapes were sufficiently minor that I dont thing a bare head would have touched the road. I reckon the helmet did me no good but no harm. The other was a glancing collision with a black cab which left me tumbling down the road at about 18mph. My helmet didn't hit anything. Conclusion - helmets are irrelevant in plenty of accidents.

I'm having some physio (the haematoma is very slowly draining down my leg causing brusing and stiffness as far as my calf). THe physio has worked as an A&E nurse and is a keen cyclist. I told her that I had been sceptical about helmets she said a couple of thinks that were interesting to me:
1. she had seen bodies in A&E which would have still been people if they had been wearing helmets. She said that in some cases a fall as low as 10mph can kill if the head strikes something hard directly - she has seen people who have hit flints or chalks and died
2. She said "would you have been brain damaged without your helmet? Maybe not badly but low level damage can happen quite easily and can be very serious if short-term memory loss or a lack of concentration effects your job"

Of course, all of this is just anecdotal and doesn't prove anything but I'll be wearing my helmet when I'm fit to get back on the bike.

J

biondino

Chapeau, jedster.

DonDaddyD

jedster wrote:

Just back after 2 weeks hols without the internet. Good to see that some things never change!

Recent experience has made me more pro-helmet although I'm not in favour of compulsion.

Until recently, I too had been rather sceptical about hw much benefit helmets provide for the reason others have given:

However, I'm still sceptical about the effectiveness of helmets. There seems to be a big discrepancy between case studies and whole population studies (in countries that have compulsory helmet wearing). If helmets were so effective, it should have shown up in injury statistics by now. While the jury is still out I shall continue to wear my helmet...

I tended to the view that risk compensation (riding more aggressively) was offsetting the modest benefits from wearing a helmet.

I still wore a helmet because I felt a) it could make minor accidents less unpleasant and b) I was arrogant enough to think I could keep a lid (sorry) on risk compensation.

However, a couple of weeks ago I had an off on a diesel spill (I posted a thread called "extra buttock" or something - the most spectacular injury was a HUGE haematoma on my right hip) - a minor change of direction at 22mph led to my front wheel skidding and I hit the deck almost instantaneously. I landed on my hip, shoulder and right temple. The blow to my head broke my glasses which cut my forehead which was glued up in A&E. It also compressed and cracked my helmet over my temple. I was a bit dazed after and had a mild headache but no lasting concussion.

I think this incident is interesting for a number of reasons:

1. I think this kind of accident could happen to anyone. I was not riding aggressively. I don't think I made any mistakes that were avoidable. Perhaps it is very unusual but I have heard of several similar accidents
2. I was travelling at 22mph - i.e., much more than 12 mph. Of course this does not mean that my head hit the ground at 22 mph. This seems to me to be the reason that the "helmets don't work above 12 mph" argument is a complete red herring.
3. I don't know how bad the head injury would have been without the (now ex-) helmet but given the damage to the helmet/glasses/size of the haematoma and the fact that I seem to have cracked a rib, it feels like it was a fairly hefty blow. I'm really glad I didn't find out.

Given all that, I've lost my scepticism.

It seems to me that if I was a helmet non-wearer reading my post I could challenge the conclusion that it makes a strong argument for wearing a helmet on perhaps three grounds:

1. the story might have been made up or a half truth (i.e., I'm exaggerating the force of the impact, I was actually riding irresponsibly). Can't prove anything here of course. I've tried to be as balanced as possible
2. although this is a real example of how a helmet really helped it was a freak accident that is not worth protecting against
3. the dangers of helmet wearing (risk compensation, rotational injuries) outweigh the benefit of protecting against this kind of accident

Obviously I dont believe 1 is valid. I don't really think that diesel spills are that unusual so I discount 2. Seems to me that the third point is an open question.

A couple of other points/anecdotes:

I have had three others spills in the last 4 years. Two were turning hard right at junctions on slippery roads (one wet leaves, the other clay left by construction trucks). These were low speed rear wheel slides. In both I gently scraped my helmet on the road. The scrapes were sufficiently minor that I dont thing a bare head would have touched the road. I reckon the helmet did me no good but no harm. The other was a glancing collision with a black cab which left me tumbling down the road at about 18mph. My helmet didn't hit anything. Conclusion - helmets are irrelevant in plenty of accidents.

I'm having some physio (the haematoma is very slowly draining down my leg causing brusing and stiffness as far as my calf). THe physio has worked as an A&E nurse and is a keen cyclist. I told her that I had been sceptical about helmets she said a couple of thinks that were interesting to me:
1. she had seen bodies in A&E which would have still been people if they had been wearing helmets. She said that in some cases a fall as low as 10mph can kill if the head strikes something hard directly - she has seen people who have hit flints or chalks and died
2. She said "would you have been brain damaged without your helmet? Maybe not badly but low level damage can happen quite easily and can be very serious if short-term memory loss or a lack of concentration effects your job"

Of course, all of this is just anecdotal and doesn't prove anything but I'll be wearing my helmet when I'm fit to get back on the bike.

J

Brilliant Post!

passout

Doctors? What was their PhD in - bad advice? A helmet is clearly better than no helmet. I've had a crash which backs up this rather obvious claim.

Cunobelin

passout wrote:

Doctors? What was their PhD in - bad advice? A helmet is clearly better than no helmet. I've had a crash which backs up this rather obvious claim.

As have many more pedestrians!

jedster

passout wrote:
Doctors? What was their PhD in - bad advice? A helmet is clearly better than no helmet. I've had a crash which backs up this rather obvious claim.

As have many more pedestrians!

Hmmm, you'd be doing well as a ped to hit your head as hard as I did after that diesel spill.

J

Cunobelin

jedster wrote:

passout wrote:
Doctors? What was their PhD in - bad advice? A helmet is clearly better than no helmet. I've had a crash which backs up this rather obvious claim.

As have many more pedestrians!

Hmmm, you'd be doing well as a ped to hit your head as hard as I did after that diesel spill.

J

Which is all the more reason for pedestrians to wear them - the low speed,low impact falls thattheytend to have are totaly within the design parameters of most EN1078 helmets. Helmets would tend to be MORE efficient in pedestrian use than in cycling.

whome

Your incident doesn't prove that your helmet helped at all.
"I don't know how bad the head injury would have been without"
Precisely. It is only conjecture what might have happened without the helmet or how much effect the helmet had.

If you want to wear a helmet then that is your own choice. If that incident is enough to justify it to yourself as necessary and useful, then that is fine. But it is not in any way hard evidence.

The reports based on population wide data don't show any improvement in injury figures with increased helmet use. So any effect must be negligible. Therefore other safety areas are where we should really be concentrating our efforts which can have real effect. Helmets are a distraction from the real safety issues.

biondino

LOL. Whome, would you rather be wearing a helmet in jedster's position or not?

lost_in_thought

Me, I'd rather have been wearing the helmet.

I'm a massive hypocrite though because I don't wear one. I got knocked sideways at speed (about 23mph) into a high kerb and I'm told (don't remember) that I headbutted the tarmac and did a rather spectacular somersault with the bike still attached to my feet.

I wasn't wearing a helmet, but as I struggled through the concussion and regularly brushed the massive grazes on my scalp, and looked at the one on my forehead, I kind of wished I had been.

But of course, who knows exactly what would have happened?

DonDaddyD

The notion that pedestrians don't wear helmets so why should cyclists is ridiculous beyond belife.

I've yet to see an argument that states that not wearing a helmet is more safe and less dangerous than actually wearing a helmet. That would be a substaintial point IMO. Arguments about how the evidence was gathered or how the research was conducted doesn't change the fact that I'd rather hit the ground with my head encased in a helmet as opposed to my actual head hitting the ground. I'd rather my helmet scraping the tarmac than my skin.

---

I see wearing a helmet like wearing a condom, its not 100% safe but its safer than not wearing/using one and in the helmets case not an ordeal or hassle to put on.....

Moby wrote:

LOL. Whome, would you rather be wearing a helmet in jedster's position or not?

I think Moby hit the nail on the head..... lol.

whome

I've yet to see an argument that states that not wearing a helmet is more safe and less dangerous than actually wearing a helmet.

So you've not seen the arguments that rotational injuries may be increased by helmets, and the rather obvious point that you are far more likely to hit your head while wearing a helmet (it's bigger).

would you rather be wearing a helmet

Like I said it is personal choice. I don't wear a helmet and the accidents I have had, haven't convinced me otherwise. The data suggests it is not likely to make a difference to me and there are far more important safety issues to worry about.