Helmet, Yes or No?

shm_uk

To settle this debate once and for all, I would just like to say that I always cycle wearng a helmet and I have never been knocked off my bike and hit my head.

This proves conclusively that my helmet has saved my life probably hundreds, if not millions, of times without me even realising it.

I don't really see what more there could possibly be to talk about in the face of such evidence.

All hail the cycle helmet!

jonny_trousers

Sketchley wrote:

Or least making me think there should be some kind of campaign to make cycle helmets better.

I do agree wholeheartedly with this, but I will still stick with what is available now until something better comes onto the market. Perhaps I'm just a simple kind of a guy, but I can't help but base my decision on the understanding that if I hit my head against a hard object it will hurt me far less if I am wearing a cycling helmet than if I am not.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

I also happen to think that a large number of the people campaigning for manadatory helmet wearing are doing so because they know it will reduce the number of cyclists.

One of the more ridiculous things I've read.

I love riding a bike. Like with Sportives, those that don't normally where helmets but want to take part (in Sportives) just get on with it, buy one and wear it.

sketchley

@DDD

From http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
Helmet laws in Australia provided excellent data sets with which to test the effectiveness of cycle helmets because a principal effect of the laws was to increase substantially over a short period of time the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets. This enabled a comparison of a very large number of individuals not wearing and then wearing helmets, eliminating most of the other variables present when comparing different people or dissimilar riding conditions.

At first, reports suggested that legislation had achieved its aim of reducing head injuries. But the researchers did not take into account the very large decline in cycle use brought about by the laws. Robinson found that although more than 75% of cyclists wore helmets post-law, this was mainly because of the disappearance of formerly bare-headed cyclists rather than because of an increase in the absolute numbers wearing helmets. The main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than to encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Although cycle use fell on average by about 30%, head injuries fell by only 13%, so the risk of head injury per cyclist would appear to have increased. Furthermore, the proportional reduction in head injuries for cyclists was very similar to that for unhelmeted pedestrians over the same period.

wgwarburton

CiB wrote:

..I...My biggest angst about all this is that come the day when some politician wants to make a name for hisself by introducing a helmet law, there won't be enough people prepared to say 'hold on, there's no real need, how can all cycle rides be deemed so unsafe as to warrant a crash hat' etc etc, and it'll be introduced by apathy, ....

Yes. Exactly.

Cheers,
W.

hfidgen

Happy to let people decide for themselves, I don't normally wear one when pootling on a country road, but I sure as hell wear one crossing london. Which is more dangerous? I don't know, it probably comes down to perceived risk - London SMELLS dangerous whereas the countryside smells of horse sh*t.

I think that as long as people accept the fact that serious brain injury will leave them as a dead-weight burden on their families. It's a personal choice, but I tend to think it's a bit selfish when people refuse to wear one.

Confusedboy

I wear a helmet when I need to be wearing a hat on the bike in cold weather; it just seems daft not to.

I would support the idea that adult cyclists need to be insured and registered, carrying license plates for identification, as I think it would lead to much less illegality (RLJ, pavement riding etc) but I want something in return, which would be a cycle phase at traffic lights and more, physically separated, 'kerbed off' cycle lanes.

wgwarburton

hfidgen wrote:

Happy to let people decide for themselves, I don't normally wear one when pootling on a country road, but I sure as hell wear one crossing london. Which is more dangerous? I don't know, it probably comes down to perceived risk - London SMELLS dangerous whereas the countryside smells of horse sh*t.

I think that as long as people accept the fact that serious brain injury will leave them as a dead-weight burden on their families. It's a personal choice, but I tend to think it's a bit selfish when people refuse to wear one.

You see, this is what gets me riled up!

You know the script: not dangerous, no proven benefit, blah, blah, blah... and yet you add to the general weight of opinion that helmets must improve safety and that, as a result we should all wear them!!!

Unbelievable...! or a troll? Consider me comprehensively hooked!! I guess I'm just hacked off about the whole thing ,ATM, so my irony system is FUBARed....

Cheers,
W.

bigmat

Confusedboy wrote:

I wear a helmet when I need to be wearing a hat on the bike in cold weather; it just seems daft not to.

I would support the idea that adult cyclists need to be insured and registered, carrying license plates for identification, as I think it would lead to much less illegality (RLJ, pavement riding etc) but I want something in return, which would be a cycle phase at traffic lights and more, physically separated, 'kerbed off' cycle lanes.

You really are confused!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org

Not exactly impartial. One of the editorial board is a Guy Chapman. He has a few sites one of which is www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk. Where you can find this peach:

Cycle safety has been hijacked by extremists: helmet monomaniacs and the Daily Mail brigade who can’t understand that cyclists riding through red lights in the gridlocked traffic they are supposed to prevent is no risk to anyone.

BURN HIM!

Clever Pun

Sketchley wrote:

@DDD

From http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
Helmet laws in Australia provided excellent data sets with which to test the effectiveness of cycle helmets because a principal effect of the laws was to increase substantially over a short period of time the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets. This enabled a comparison of a very large number of individuals not wearing and then wearing helmets, eliminating most of the other variables present when comparing different people or dissimilar riding conditions.

At first, reports suggested that legislation had achieved its aim of reducing head injuries. But the researchers did not take into account the very large decline in cycle use brought about by the laws. Robinson found that although more than 75% of cyclists wore helmets post-law, this was mainly because of the disappearance of formerly bare-headed cyclists rather than because of an increase in the absolute numbers wearing helmets. The main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than to encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Although cycle use fell on average by about 30%, head injuries fell by only 13%, so the risk of head injury per cyclist would appear to have increased. Furthermore, the proportional reduction in head injuries for cyclists was very similar to that for unhelmeted pedestrians over the same period.

DonDaddyD wrote:

One of the most ridiculous things I've read... oh hang on

Really wow do you read anyone elses threads on here that info has been bandied about in every damn thread about helmets... it's probably even earlier in this thread

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

@DDD

From http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
Helmet laws in Australia provided excellent data sets with which to test the effectiveness of cycle helmets because a principal effect of the laws was to increase substantially over a short period of time the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets. This enabled a comparison of a very large number of individuals not wearing and then wearing helmets, eliminating most of the other variables present when comparing different people or dissimilar riding conditions.

At first, reports suggested that legislation had achieved its aim of reducing head injuries. But the researchers did not take into account the very large decline in cycle use brought about by the laws. Robinson found that although more than 75% of cyclists wore helmets post-law, this was mainly because of the disappearance of formerly bare-headed cyclists rather than because of an increase in the absolute numbers wearing helmets. The main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than to encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Although cycle use fell on average by about 30%, head injuries fell by only 13%, so the risk of head injury per cyclist would appear to have increased. Furthermore, the proportional reduction in head injuries for cyclists was very similar to that for unhelmeted pedestrians over the same period.

OK firstly the entire article is written with a helmet bias in mind.

Secondly, Australia isn't England. Just because the number of people in Australia who ride a bike reduced following helmet enforcement, it doesn't mean the same effect would happen in England where wearing a helmet is arguably the cultural norm.

Also the survey only cites head injuries. I would, as a point of interest, like to review brain injury stats.

But not to focus on semantics. If they enforced the use of cycling helmets it wouldn't put me off cycling. I doubt it would many others.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

But not to focus on semantics. If they enforced the use of cycling helmets it wouldn't put me off cycling. I doubt it would many others.

See all those tourists enjoying the sun riding round hyde park on boris bikes? The Beautiful Godzillas swanning around on dutch bikes in their summer dresses? They'd all be put off by it.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

. If they enforced the use of cycling helmets it wouldn't put me off cycling. I doubt it would many others.

It'd put me off donig a quick jaunt into town or to the pub.

Enormous faff having to carry around a helmet. They're decidedly inconvenient.

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

Really wow do you read anyone elses threads on here that info has been bandied about in every damn thread about helmets... it's probably even earlier in this thread

Yeah I've seen it been cited before of the bastion of the no-helmet brigade.

My stance is this. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. What irks me is 'helmet deniers'. People who refuse to accept that if your helmet absorbs the impact there is an increased chance you will not do damage that part of your head.

DonDaddyD

See all those tourists enjoying the sun riding round hyde park on boris bikes? The Beautiful Godzillas swanning around on dutch bikes in their summer dresses? They'd all be put off by it.

AND

It'd put me off donig a quick jaunt into town or to the pub.

Enormous faff having to carry around a helmet. They're decidedly inconvenient.

Ah and this is where the report falls flat.

You cannot take a research piece from Australia and apply it to specific circumstances in England.

Does the research state what type of cycling (commuting, training, leisure etc) OR does it just say the number of cyclist. I think it mentions somewhere online that the number of school kids cycling to school decreased.

Is the cycling infrastructure in Australia different to Enlgand and could that be a variable that invalidates the Australia example with any direct comparison to England? (If there were madatory helmet laws in England would Boris Bikes provide helemts?) I could go on.

Analytic mind, me.

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Really wow do you read anyone elses threads on here that info has been bandied about in every damn thread about helmets... it's probably even earlier in this thread

Yeah I've seen it been cited before of the bastion of the no-helmet brigade.

My stance is this. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. What irks me is 'helmet deniers'. People who refuse to accept that if your helmet absorbs the impact there is an increased chance you will not do damage that part of your head.

Having read your reply after mine, I might have been a little aggressive there.

To me that is just a set of numbers which showed that in that case the numbers of people cycling went down if they had to wear a helmet. As Rick just mentioned, a lot of those "little nip out to get x" would stop.

I don't think anyone is saying wearing a helmet wont help in a low speed bump at all. Which is what it's designed to to after all

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Really wow do you read anyone elses threads on here that info has been bandied about in every damn thread about helmets... it's probably even earlier in this thread

Yeah I've seen it been cited before of the bastion of the no-helmet brigade.

My stance is this. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. What irks me is 'helmet deniers'. People who refuse to accept that if your helmet absorbs the impact there is an increased chance you will not do damage that part of your head.

Having read your reply after mine, I might have been a little aggressive there.

Yeah I was thinking about putting you in a headlock...

Wouldn't hurt at all if you were wearing a cycling helmet though....

To me that is just a set of numbers which showed that in that case the numbers of people cycling went down if they had to wear a helmet. As Rick just mentioned, all those "little nip out to get x" would stop.

I don't think anyone is saying wearing a helmet wont help in a low speed bump at all. Which is what it's designed to to after all

I concede that some journeys made by bike would reduce. But I also think the composition of cyclists in England (commuters, racers, leisure riders, paper round, casual to the pub types) is different to that in Australia, so a direct correlation/comparison cannot be made.

ebt

Theres UK specific data in there too:

Conclusions
Examination of cyclist casualty data for Great Britain, Greater London and Cambridge shows no
evidence of any reduction in serious injuries despite a large increase in helmet wearing by cyclists
since the mid 1980s.
If cycle helmets are effective in reducing head injury, it seems reasonable to expect that the reductions
in injuries would be reflected in the general casualty statistics, particularly in places where helmet use
has become significant. There is no indication that this is the case.
With more than 2 out of 5 cyclists now wearing helmets in London, it is difficult to see what greater
use of helmets would be necessary to achieve noticeable casualty reductions, particularly if the more
optimistic predictions for the effectiveness of helmets are correct.
The results nonetheless are consistent with other research in the USA, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, none of which has found real-world evidence of any significant reduction in cyclist head
injuries in large population samples.
It would seem prudent to re-assess the claims being made for the role of cycle helmets in road injury
reduction, to ensure that the information being given to the general public is not misleading.
Sources
Casualty data from:
Transport Statistics Great Britain, DETR
London Research Centre
Cambridgeshire County Counci

tarquin_foxglove

Greg66 wrote:

I realise it was a bit early in the morning when you posted, but what bit of "it's a matter of choice" did you have trouble with?

More the highly emotive nonsense that followed.

"it's a matter of choice but I wear a helmet" = fine
"it's a matter of choice but I wear a helmet and I commend those who make a living doing something more sophisticated than dribbling, being incontinent and staring into the middle distance to do so as well. Ditto if you have dependants." = nonsense

Surely, if you are that worried about your well being & how your family would cope, it would be much safer to travel by car?

DonDaddyD

ebt wrote:

Theres UK specific data in there too:

Conclusions
Examination of cyclist casualty data for Great Britain, Greater London and Cambridge shows no
evidence of any reduction in serious injuries despite a large increase in helmet wearing by cyclists
since the mid 1980s.
If cycle helmets are effective in reducing head injury, it seems reasonable to expect that the reductions
in injuries would be reflected in the general casualty statistics, particularly in places where helmet use
has become significant. There is no indication that this is the case.
With more than 2 out of 5 cyclists now wearing helmets in London, it is difficult to see what greater
use of helmets would be necessary to achieve noticeable casualty reductions, particularly if the more
optimistic predictions for the effectiveness of helmets are correct.
The results nonetheless are consistent with other research in the USA, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, none of which has found real-world evidence of any significant reduction in cyclist head
injuries in large population samples.
It would seem prudent to re-assess the claims being made for the role of cycle helmets in road injury
reduction, to ensure that the information being given to the general public is not misleading.
Sources
Casualty data from:
Transport Statistics Great Britain, DETR
London Research Centre
Cambridgeshire County Counci

OK look, if a car is going to hit you (or if you fall off your bike for other reasons) chances are there is going to be other injuries alongside head injuries. If you wear a helmet chances are there may be less head injuries but you still sustain the same level injury to your body.

As Greg66 pointed out, while no one wants any injury whatsoever, protecting the brain is arguably the most vital. So while I may break a bone and contribute to the above statistic I'll be glad that my head stayed intact.

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK look, if a car is going to hit you (or if you fall off your bike for other reasons) chances are there is going to be other injuries alongside head injuries. If you wear a helmet chances are there may be less head injuries but you still sustain the same level injury to your body. .

I fear you may be missing the point... Cycle helmets are supposed to reduce head injuries, and yet here is a report pointing out that:

If cycle helmets are effective in reducing head injury, it seems reasonable to expect that the reductions in injuries would be reflected in the general casualty statistics,.... There is no indication that this is the case. ...it is difficult to see what greater
use of helmets would be necessary to achieve noticeable casualty reductions, ...The results nonetheless are consistent with other research in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, none of which has found real-world evidence of any significant reduction in cyclist head injuries in large population samples. ...

Helmet use has gone up, you would expect this to reduce the number of observed head injuries but it has not done so: the number of head injuries has not gone down.

Either they simply don't work, or they don't work in some more complex and subtle manner. The whole "rotational injury" idea is suggested as a complex mechanism, for example- if helmets provide effective impact protection (G66's hammer example) and yet there is no observable reduction in head injuries, then some other form of head injury must have got worse!! This is still largely unexplored ("more research required") but I find it quite alarming. Risk compensation is another theory... I daresay there are more.

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK look, if a car is going to hit you (or if you fall off your bike for other reasons) chances are there is going to be other injuries alongside head injuries. If you wear a helmet chances are there may be less head injuries but you still sustain the same level injury to your body. .

I fear you may be missing the point... Cycle helmets are supposed to reduce head injuries, and yet here is a report pointing out that:

If cycle helmets are effective in reducing head injury, it seems reasonable to expect that the reductions in injuries would be reflected in the general casualty statistics,.... There is no indication that this is the case. ...it is difficult to see what greater
use of helmets would be necessary to achieve noticeable casualty reductions, ...The results nonetheless are consistent with other research in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, none of which has found real-world evidence of any significant reduction in cyclist head injuries in large population samples. ...

Helmet use has gone up, you would expect this to reduce the number of observed head injuries but it has not done so: the number of head injuries has not gone down.

Either they simply don't work, or they don't work in some more complex and subtle manner. The whole "rotational injury" idea is suggested as a complex mechanism, for example- if helmets provide effective impact protection (G66's hammer example) and yet there is no observable reduction in head injuries, then some other form of head injury must have got worse!! This is still largely unexplored ("more research required") but I find it quite alarming. Risk compensation is another theory... I daresay there are more.

Cheers,
W.

When they say head injury do they specify location?

sketchley

@DDD, I shared your opinion until a couple of days ago when I started reading that cycle helmet site. It's a bit of an eye opener. Please read it, really read it, it's properly cross referenced too not just opinion. If they quote a study like the Australian one it's referenced so you can check out the questions you asked. The shocking thing for me is since the UK standard was relaxed in favour of euro one in 90's there is not any benefit from a helmet when impacting against a flat surface, road windscreen etc. They have done the tests and it's explained. The shocking thing is we are being sold something that we wear for all the right reasons, but it doesn't work. Still not ready to take mine off though.

Dgh

A few simple facts; helmets will not save your life all the time. They do nothing to improve the road safety awareness of others around you or your own. They leave areas of the head such as the face unprotected.

However, they do help to protect the most vital organ of all in the event of a collision. Any discomfort is minimal, and good quality ones are available relatively inexpensively.

Does anyone think James Cracknell's helmet did nothing to limit the injuries he sustained in his crash?

Of course, one can make the argument that it's all down to individual choice. People used to say that about seatbelts. But as we have a National Health Service, funded by the taxes of all of us, the community as a whole has right to opine on this. We all pick up the bill when people get brain damage. If we had an insurance based system, you could pay a higher premium for not wearing a helmet.

The anti-helmet brigade can come up with all sorts of arguments, but they're all nonsense. The simple point is, there is no real reason not to wear a helmet, and it could be beneficial, so, why not?

The safety argument is not an argument against cycling, as the long-term health benefits are considerable.

wgwarburton

Sketchley wrote:

@DDD, I shared your opinion until a couple of days ago when I started reading that cycle helmet site. It's a bit of an eye opener. Please read it, really read it, it's properly cross referenced too not just opinion. If they quote a study like the Australian one it's referenced so you can check out the questions you asked. The shocking thing for me is since the UK standard was relaxed in favour of euro one in 90's there is not any benefit from a helmet when impacting against a flat surface, road windscreen etc. They have done the tests and it's explained. The shocking thing is we are being sold something that we wear for all the right reasons, but it doesn't work. Still not ready to take mine off though.

Hypothetically, if you had been cycling for years without wearing a helmet and looked at this before deciding to go out and buy one, would you then go out and drop forty quid on it?
I'm assuming that you wouldn't be taking part in any events where it would be mandated- that would change the question significantly.

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

I think some people get it and some people don't.

UndercoverElephant

Sketchley wrote:

@DDD, I shared your opinion until a couple of days ago when I started reading that cycle helmet site. It's a bit of an eye opener. Please read it, really read it, it's properly cross referenced too not just opinion. If they quote a study like the Australian one it's referenced so you can check out the questions you asked. The shocking thing for me is since the UK standard was relaxed in favour of euro one in 90's there is not any benefit from a helmet when impacting against a flat surface, road windscreen etc. They have done the tests and it's explained. The shocking thing is we are being sold something that we wear for all the right reasons, but it doesn't work. Still not ready to take mine off though.

That cycle-helmet site is roughly as impartial as Buns in this debate. Seriously, can you really trust a single website, which to its credit does list some sources, to give you an impartial view? They definitely don't list other sources which don't match their agenda. If we're going to keep feeding this meaningless debate, try this one:

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_f ... ycles.html

Ninety-one percent of cyclists killed in the US, in 2008 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.

I wear a helmet most of the time, I have taken to not wearing one for short trips round the village. If my wife catches me, I'm in trouble.

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

...When they say head injury do they specify location?

Generally, the information gathered doesn't seem to be that good. I guess the paramedics are more interested in washing the blood off the stretcher than form-filling and the casualty nurse wasn't at the scene, so may not know whether a helmet was worn at all, for example...

Cheers,
W.

wgwarburton

UndercoverElephant wrote:

...That cycle-helmet site is roughly as impartial as Buns in this debate. ....

So, what do you think my agenda is?

Cheers,
W.