Helmet, Yes or No?

MonkeyMonster

WGWarburton wrote:

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.

you want people to stop wearing helmets because you feel its adding to the idea cycling is dangerous

wgwarburton

MonkeyMonster wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

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.

you want people to stop wearing helmets because you feel its adding to the idea cycling is dangerous

Nope. I don't want them to stop. I want them to make an informed decision and then not assume that everyone else should make the same one.

Cheers,
W.

nickthetrick

UndercoverElephant wrote:

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

Interesting.... I wonder what fraction of american cyclists don't wear helmets? 91% +/- a little bit maybe?!

These stats mean very little unless fully qualified.

sketchley

nickthetrick wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

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

Interesting.... I wonder what fraction of american cyclists don't wear helmets? 91% +/- a little bit maybe?!

These stats mean very little unless fully qualified.

I was going to say the same thing but was busy looking though links to see if I could find it. Whilst I won't dismiss this data there are two things missing, the first is as you point out is what percentage of cyclists wear helmets, in some US states you can ride a motorbike without a helmet so this maybe fairly high and indeed if it is 91% then the helmet makes no difference. The second thing missing is statistic is for number of accidents with or without a helmet, if this statistic indeed shows that you helmets saves live there should be a corresponding statistic showing a larger number of non fatal accidents amongst helmet wearers.

Of course there is also the possibility that risk takers are likely to be non helmet wearers which in turn could skew the statistic.

bunter

“My brain? That´s my second favourite organ.”

- Woody Allen

jonny_trousers

So the one thing we all agree on here is that statistics are often rather misleading?

UndercoverElephant

nickthetrick wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

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

Interesting.... I wonder what fraction of american cyclists don't wear helmets? 91% +/- a little bit maybe?!

These stats mean very little unless fully qualified.

Indeed. I was being a bit cheeky, mainly as there had been some people really falling for the opinions of the website cyclehelmets.org, which are at best cherry-picked, and in my opinion are downright misleading in many cases. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

To answer your question, the proportion of Americans who cycle regularly and wear a helmet for every trip is around 35%. Again a misleading statistic, as perhaps it's not the Americans who cycle regularly that die, maybe the occasional users aren't so likely to.

Stats aplenty over here:

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

That's a pro-helmet website, for the avoidance of doubt. They also mention that some of the stats they link to contradict one another quite a bit, who'd have thought?

BelgianBeerGeek

@Dgh. Fair point, we're all entitled to an opinion. But there has to be some balance between compulsion (state intervention) and personal freedom. Otherwise we'd ban playing rugby, swimming in the sea or indeed anything perceived as "dangerous", as they all cost us money via the NHS. Personally I think compulsion would be a step too far. It's your head, after all.

sketchley

More reading bit long this one.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... effect4726

I liked this bit

The pro-bicycle helmet group base their argument overwhelmingly on one major point: that there is scientific evidence that, in the event of a fall, helmets substantially reduce head injury.

The anti-helmet group base their argument on a wider range of issues including: compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in cycling, risk compensation theory negates health gains, scientific studies are defective, the overall road environment needs to be improved.

The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.

I'm still keeping my helmet on.

naive

Apologies for going back over a couple of older points.

Greg invites us to consider the energy involved in smashing a cycle helmet with a hammer. Those who have replied to that have taken it to mean something like a carpenter's hammer, and I believe that this was Greg's intention. The problem with this example is not principally the absence or presence of melons--I would leave that down to individual choice. The problem is that the energy involved in a single blow from a carpenter's hammer is much lower than that involved in falling on your head, because the mass is so low. A more appropriate comparison would be a dead-weight blow from a sledge-hammer to the helmet at a little below waist height--make very sure the blow is to the cycle helmet. The distance fallen would be a little less than that for a person falling from standing onto his head, and the mass is still a too low, but it is a bit more comparable.

I don't intend to perform this experiment, as I have only one cycle helmet and no sledge hammer, but I would imagine that there is a much greater chance of damage to the cycle helmet and to any innocent melons which were involved.

On a separate point, more than one poster has linked to a humorous BMJ article saying that there is no evidence that parachutes work as there has not been any rigorous scientific study done. Some people suggest that this is equivalent to the various arguments that there is no evidence that cycle helmets are effective, but this is not really true. Experiments have been done to show that parachutes increase the drag on a body falling through air, and that a (reasonably) consistent relationship can be derived between the aerodynamic properties of the parachute--basically canopy size, the mass of the body, and the terminal velocity in the earth's atmosphere when accelerated under the earth's gravity. These experiments are probably still being repeated by GCSE physicists unless standards have fallen even further than I thought. I can't recall the exact numbers. but an appropriate canopy, if used properly--you have to say "if used properly" when discussing safety devices--would reduce the speed at impact to the ground for an 80kg man jumping from 30000 feet from over 100mph to under 10mph. There is also data available on about the consequences of the human body hitting the ground at various speeds. There does not seem to be the equivalent experimental evidence that, for example, for a blow equivalent to falling from head height onto a flat surface, a cycle helmet would consistently reduce the force/energy to a head inside it by a certain factor, and that that factor is significant (unless they are keeping it secret).

Third, completely separate point: I am surprised how little those who have come to the conclusion that wearing a cycle helmet increases their safety--with the possible exception of Sketchley--seem to care that the safety standards required of helmets have fallen in recent years and that many modern helmets would not pass the older, more stringent tests. I think this is dreadful.

This may all come across as anti-helmet, so I should probably point out that I always wear a helmet when cycling, and that I have irrefutable evidence that it is 100% effective in doing the job for which it was bought. Having said that, the job for which it was bought was to stop my missus from nagging me about cycling without a helmet, which is perhaps not quite the point. Evidence of effectiveness or otherwise is not really relevant in that case.

Finally, compulsory helmets for cycling. As I just mentioned, I already have this imposed on me, and, honestly, it really isn't that bad! I am not sure that it would discourage a huge number of people from cycling, particularly once a generation comes through where wearing a helmet is the norm, as seems to have happened on the ski slopes. However, neither am I convinced that there is any good reason to make them compulsory.

Cheers
(phew, long post, and I don't even have a strong opinion!)

rick_chasey

It seems there's now a legal case for wearing helmets.

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... gal-status

pangolin

Rick Chasey wrote:

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

In a bicycle race, not person vs car. Don't scaremonger!

rick_chasey

pangolin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

In a bicycle race, not person vs car. Don't scaremonger!

(That's used as a way to crowbar the rest of the stuff)

The Cyclists' Defence Fund have suggested that deductions for not wearing a helmet are now common in out-of-court settlements of head injury claims brought by cyclists. And when cases have reached the courts in recent years, the courts have held that cycling without a helmet is negligent (at least for the purposes of contributory negligence), largely because it involves ignoring the Highway Code's recommendation that "you should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened". This conclusion was first expressed by Mr Justice Griffith Williams in the 2009 case of Smith v Finch, and has now been adopted by the High Court in its last three decisions on the issue.

..and Smith V Finch is a road traffic accident.

mudcow007

Rick Chasey wrote:

It seems there's now a legal case for wearing helmets.

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... gal-status

the case discussed on that link about the guy whose employer held a corporate sports day, which involved a bike race, the guy ignored the cycle helmet an collided with another cyclist

how could his employer be sued? the guy got on the bike on his own (not forced) then crashed into someone else.....his employer didn't make them crash

mad i tells ya.....maaaaad

petemadoc

Just a little story for you.

We were out for a social Sunday ride a few weeks back. The front man pulled over into quite a gravelly side road and we all followed and came to a stop but one of my mates lost his front wheel on the gravel. He didn't get up straight away so we helped him to his feet, he couldn't stand properly so we sat him down on the ground. After a minute or so he seemed ok so set off on our bikes again but our fall guy went the wrong way, then he started talking complete rubbish and couldn't remember most of what had happened that day. At this point we called an ambulance. He spend the night in hospital but is fine now although he still has no memory of the fall or most of the day.

He was wearing a helmet and the helmet cracked as I guess it's meant to. I believe the helmet saved him from a much worse injury. Some may argue it didn't do anything. I guess most cyclists have a story like this to tell.

bails87

So in summary, man wearing helmet hits head and gets concussion?

notsoblue

PeteMadoc wrote:

Just a little story for you.

We were out for a social Sunday ride a few weeks back. The front man pulled over into quite a gravelly side road and we all followed and came to a stop but one of my mates lost his front wheel on the gravel. He didn't get up straight away so we helped him to his feet, he couldn't stand properly so we sat him down on the ground. After a minute or so he seemed ok so set off on our bikes again but our fall guy went the wrong way, then he started talking complete rubbish and couldn't remember most of what had happened that day. At this point we called an ambulance. He spend the night in hospital but is fine now although he still has no memory of the fall or most of the day.

He was wearing a helmet and the helmet cracked as I guess it's meant to. I believe the helmet saved him from a much worse injury. Some may argue it didn't do anything. I guess most cyclists have a story like this to tell.

Theres a huge difference between that kind of riding and just pootling half a mile down the shops to get some milk.

Clever Pun

Was wearing a helmet when I clonked my head on the top of a door frame

I dread to think what would have happened if I wasn't wearing it


yep that's right...nothing

Wrath Rob

Intersting article, but the key point seems to be:

In 2009 the Department for Transport commissioned a report (requires registration) which reviewed the evidence on cycle helmets and concluded that they "would be expected to be effective" at reducing the risk of head injury in cases not involving other vehicles, or where another vehicle simply glances or tips over a cyclist. But in full collisions with motor vehicles the evidence doesn't establish that helmets are effective, because the applicable standards for cycle helmets don't require testing at impact speeds above about 12mph, which is the impact speed of a fall to the ground from a typical bike seat.

The previous court decisions involved collisions with motor vehicles, at speeds higher than those at which helmets are tested, so the courts didn't have sufficient evidence that a helmet would have made a difference to the head injury. As a result they couldn't make reductions in the compensation awarded to the injured cyclists. Reynolds' case was different because there was no motor vehicle involved, and the judge found that the impact speed was likely to have been within the range at which helmets are tested.

So if another vehicle was involved and the impact speed is >12mph this would not apply.

However, I wear a helmet and when I was knocked off last month and hit my head on the car bonnet I was bloody glad I was wearing one. I saw stars but had no other head injuries.

rick_chasey

Wrath Rob wrote:

Intersting article, but the key point seems to be:

In 2009 the Department for Transport commissioned a report (requires registration) which reviewed the evidence on cycle helmets and concluded that they "would be expected to be effective" at reducing the risk of head injury in cases not involving other vehicles, or where another vehicle simply glances or tips over a cyclist. But in full collisions with motor vehicles the evidence doesn't establish that helmets are effective, because the applicable standards for cycle helmets don't require testing at impact speeds above about 12mph, which is the impact speed of a fall to the ground from a typical bike seat.

The previous court decisions involved collisions with motor vehicles, at speeds higher than those at which helmets are tested, so the courts didn't have sufficient evidence that a helmet would have made a difference to the head injury. As a result they couldn't make reductions in the compensation awarded to the injured cyclists. Reynolds' case was different because there was no motor vehicle involved, and the judge found that the impact speed was likely to have been within the range at which helmets are tested.

So if another vehicle was involved and the impact speed is >12mph this would not apply.

However, I wear a helmet and when I was knocked off last month and hit my head on the car bonnet I was bloody glad I was wearing one. I saw stars but had no other head injuries.

I thought the key point for cyclists generally was the part I quoted..

Specifically:

when cases have reached the courts in recent years, the courts have held that cycling without a helmet is negligent (at least for the purposes of contributory negligence), largely because it involves ignoring the Highway Code's recommendation that "you should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened". This conclusion was first expressed by Mr Justice Griffith Williams in the 2009 case of Smith v Finch, and has now been adopted by the High Court in its last three decisions on the issue.

petemadoc

bails87 wrote:

So in summary, man wearing helmet hits head and gets concussion?

Exactly,

He landed on his head and the helmet took the brunt of the impact.

Wearing helmet = cracked helmet and a bit of concussion

No helmet = cracked head

Personally I don't always wear my helmet, for example when I pop to the corner shop to get milk and a paper etc. But whenever I put my lycra on my helmet goes on too.

nation

In civil claims for injury as a result of a road traffic accident (the vast majority of which are settled before any kind of hearing or judgement) it is virtually guaranteed that the defendant solicitor or insurance company will argue for a percentage reduction in damages on the basis of contributory negligence when a claimant cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

Most of the time they'll get it.

I actually thought that was common knowledge.

mouth

I grew up playing ice and inline hockey (both in goal) as well as riding bikes and as a teenager had a moped, all of which I wore a helmet for. Even with the helmet I've broken teeth, had stitches and concussions. I fear that my injury list would be much worse sans lid.

People who suggest that a helmet is useless because it broke on impact - THATS THE BLOODY IDEA.

My love of a helmet for the pedal bike stems from an accident aged ten. Whilst being brave (or foolish, your call) we were riding over a ramp and I spilled it, split my dome and still have the scars to prove it 20 years on. Generally not a problem if you've got a full mop, but since I'm now as bald as an egg it looks a little unsightly.

At the height of my vanity in my teens, I chose not to wear a helmet on my mountain bike and due to a motorist forcing me into an emergency stop and going over the handle bars which led to a concussion. I've lidded up since then, and when I was manager of a newsagent it was compulsory for all the paperboys and girls to wear helmets on my request.

I understand that helmetness is a personal choice, but I urge all to wear one based on my own experiences. Many cyclists I know turn to a helmet after a crash or close call of their own.

Daz555

Rick Chasey wrote:

It seems there's now a legal case for wearing helmets.

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... gal-status

I think that is a worrying trend. There used to be a principle that you take your victims as you find them - ie if you assault someone who has a weak heart and they die, then tough - you are going to jail for a long time.

It also sets the tone that a cyclist is somehow responsible for injuries caused by careless/dangerous driving. What if a cyclist who is wearing a helmet breaks his neck following an accident? Reduced comp cos they were not wearing a neck brace? Loses a leg but wasn't wearing leg protection? Where does it start & stop?

The highway code says you should wear a helmet (as well as reflective clothing etc). It does not say must and this is a very important difference.

rick_chasey

Daz555 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It seems there's now a legal case for wearing helmets.

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... gal-status

I think that is a worrying trend. There used to be a principle that you take your victims as you find them - ie if you assault someone who has a weak heart and they die, then tough - you are going to jail for a long time.

It also sets the tone that a cyclist is somehow responsible for injuries caused by careless/dangerous driving. What if a cyclist who is wearing a helmet breaks his neck following an accident? Reduced comp cos they were not wearing a neck brace? Loses a leg but wasn't wearing leg protection? Where does it start & stop?

Indeed, there is the slippery slope argument.

However, as ever with English law, it's unlikely to slip that far.

It also explains why helmets are usually mentioned in newspaper reports on cycling incidents - cycling without a helmet is now a sign of negligence.

I guess the law sees it in a similar way to not wearing a seatbelt (with the considerable caveat that one is a legal requirement and the other isn't), in that if driver #1 causes an accident with another driver (#2) which kills driver #2, where driver #2 was without a seatbelt, then the punishment for #1 is reduced, since '#2 didn't do what was reasonable to help prevent #2 dying.

If I were a judge, I'd say that sans helmet is only considered negligence if there is a legal requirement to be with helmet.

W1

Daz555 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It seems there's now a legal case for wearing helmets.

You hurt your head sans helmet, you'll get a lower legal status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... gal-status

I think that is a worrying trend. There used to be a principle that you take your victims as you find them - ie if you assault someone who has a weak heart and they die, then tough - you are going to jail for a long time.

It also sets the tone that a cyclist is somehow responsible for injuries caused by careless/dangerous driving. What if a cyclist who is wearing a helmet breaks his neck following an accident? Reduced comp cos they were not wearing a neck brace? Loses a leg but wasn't wearing leg protection? Where does it start & stop?

The highway code says you should wear a helmet (as well as reflective clothing etc). It does not say must and this is a very important difference.

It starts and stops with what is considered to be reasonable. It is not, in the grand scheme of things, unreasonable for a cyclist to be wearing a helmet - they are readily available, cheap etc etc. My greater concern with this judgement is that it seems to "legally" settle a point which is far from settled in reality - and that is the effectiveness of helmets. I suppose that were one to be involved in an accident where a helemt would clearly have made no difference then the helmet or lack thereof should not be considered contributory negligence. Where a helmet would have made a difference, is it really that unreasonable to reduce the damages because the victim decides not to wear one? I'm in dangerous ground of drawing an anology with seat-belts....

EDIT - as is RC above!

Daz555

Rick Chasey wrote:

If I were a judge, I'd say that sans helmet is only considered negligence if there is a legal requirement to be with helmet.

Excactly. Even more so when you consider the narrow range of testing which is applied to cycle helmets and its relevance to the types of accidents likely to end up in court - namely cyclists mown down by car drivers.

W1 wrote:

I suppose that were one to be involved in an accident where a helemt would clearly have made no difference then the helmet or lack thereof should not be considered contributory negligence. Where a helmet would have made a difference, is it really that unreasonable to reduce the damages because the victim decides not to wear one? I'm in dangerous ground of drawing an anology with seat-belts....!

I suppose the challenge would be that unlike seat-belts and motorcycle helmets there is not a wealth of uncontested testing/science which clearly demonstrates their effectiveness.

W1

Daz555 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If I were a judge, I'd say that sans helmet is only considered negligence if there is a legal requirement to be with helmet.

Excactly. Even more so when you consider the narrow range of testing which is applied to cycle helmets and its relevance to the types of accidents likely to end up in court - namely cyclists mown down by car drivers.

Why only use what is legally required, rather than what is reasonably available as a sensible precaution? Don't confuse civil and criminal liability.

Daz555

W1 wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Why only use what is legally required, rather than what is reasonably available as a sensible precaution? Don't confuse civil and criminal liability.

Given the number of head injuries suffered by pedestrians hit by cars a helmet would also be a sensible precaution for a pedestrian.........

A helmet would make even more sense for a car driver. Head injury stats for car drivers are shocking.

I'm saying nothing new of course. That's the problem with helmet discussions! 8)

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If I were a judge, I'd say that sans helmet is only considered negligence if there is a legal requirement to be with helmet.

Excactly. Even more so when you consider the narrow range of testing which is applied to cycle helmets and its relevance to the types of accidents likely to end up in court - namely cyclists mown down by car drivers.

Why only use what is legally required, rather than what is reasonably available as a sensible precaution? Don't confuse civil and criminal liability.

I don't consider a helmet to be reasonably available, in the same way I don't consider knee pads and elbow pads ala MTBers to be reasonably available.