Helmet, Yes or No?

DonDaddyD

whome wrote:

So you've not seen the arguments that rotational injuries may be increased by helmets

Actually no I haven't. Surely that kind of injury is down to a poorly fitted helmet, which to my understanding would be easily rectified.

and the rather obvious point that you are far more likely to hit your head while wearing a helmet (it's bigger).

That absolutely makes no sense to me. If I fall off my bike I'm more likely to hit my head when wearing a helmet because its bigger!!?? Dude... seriously... think about what your saying.

If I fall off my bike, which has happened, it (the fall) happens too quickly for me to think or stop the forward momentum that makes my head hit the ground. Therefore in the inevitable situation where my head hits the pavement then I'd rather it be encased within a helmet. But this I guess is a personal choice.

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.

But its no less safe wearing a helmet?

All I want to know is if its less safe wearing a helmet, if it is and IF by wearing a helmet I'm causing myself harm then sure I'll stop wearing one.

alfablue

Arguments against: The rotational injury can occur by virtue of the helmet catching on the ground/object and twisting your head rapidly. The increased size of the helmet compared with your head size means there is likely to be greater turning force, and some features of the helmet design (pointy vents) may increase the chance of the rotation happening.

I don't buy the "more likely to hit your head" whilst wearing a helmet argument - well, yes you are more likely to make contact with something, but if you would with 30mm of helmet but wouldn't if not wearing one, the force of the impact is going to be very minimal, so I think this is a red herring.

Risk compensation, suggests that you will be less careful, ride faster etc because you feel protected by the helmet, such as driving faster since the introduction of seat belt laws. This phenomenon probably does exist, whether the impact ('scuse the pun) is such that it exceeds the benefit of helmet wearing (or seat belt wearing in cars) is debatable.

The (dubious) study by a Bath Uni researcher found that vehicles passed bikes closer if the cyclist wore a helmet, the theory being that they infer more competence in the cyclist.

There is no clear statistical evidence that helmets reduce head injury at the population level, however this data is extremely difficult to collect with reliability and validity.

Personally I had a severe fall (totally unaided) at 20mph, broke my pelvis and shoulder on the left side (so hit the ground with considerable force) and broke my helmet. I had a very sore neck from the impact but no head injury - I believe that had my head hit the ground with the same force as my pelvis and shoulder I would have been severely injured, of course this is entirely speculative. Okay, it is a personal experience, and as such is scientifically irrelevant, but I am entitled to be illogical and am an even more committed helmet wearer since then!

biondino

Whome, do you refuse to wear a seatbelt because in the event of your car catching fire in an accident you're less likely to be able to get out quickly? Seems to be a similar scenario. Or do you not wear a seatbelt because there are more important safety concerns to worry about?

The beauty of the helmet debate is that each of us is free to do as we choose, but the anti-helmet brigade do like to disseminate worrying and potentially misleading propaganda which may make cycling noobs (the most likely to need helmets and the most likely to need them under conditions where they have been proved to be effective, i.e. at slow speeds) decide against protecting themselves.

idaviesmoore

IMHO I've never seen a convincing enough argument for NOT wearing a helmet. I've heard lots of statistics and seen many studies, but I'm sorry, when faced with the prospect of hitting cold, hard tarmac after hurtling down a hill at stupid miles an hour then I'll risk the 'rotational' hypothesis and keep my skull covered, thank you.

I ride with many competant cyclists who choose not to wear a helmet and I respect that, but at the back of my mind I always wonder what would happen if they did fall and smack their head on the concrete. It's not a smug feeling, as I'm sure there are many experts who would argue that helemtless riders are no more at risk.......but even so.

I could no more ride my bike without a helmet as drive my car without a seatbelt, it just feel, well, wrong, somehow 'unsafe'.

If the pros wear them then that's good enough for me

Redmog

Yes, but a pro is doing 30 miles an hour in a peleton, surrounded by other bike riders who are not looking more than 10 feet in front of them. I think in that situation is very sensible to wear a helmet.
When I'm tootling along at 10 miles an hour I don't think helmet is called for at all.

jedster

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.

I agree, no proof at all. But do you honestly think the blow to my head would not have been more serious without the helmet?

But it is not in any way hard evidence.

Yes - wasn't that obvious from my post?

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.

Yeah, although do you honestly think any of the population wide studies have been really well done? I've not seen anything pursuasive either way.

By the way, has anyone seen a survey of A&E admissions - relative severity of head injuries for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers. I know this would not prove the case because of the whole rsisk compensation issue (helmet wearers may have more accidents) but I'd be interested in what it said about whether helmets actually help when you have an accident.

Helmets are a distraction from the real safety issues.

i don't feel distracted by my helmet. It didn't stop me reading cyclecraft. It doesn't prevent me from taking up defensive road positions, etc, etc.

Now I agree that it would probably be better to spend money advertising Cyclecraft than promoting helmets but that does not mean helmets are worthless.

J

alfablue

Redmog wrote:

Yes, but a pro is doing 30 miles an hour in a peloton, surrounded by other bike riders who are not looking more than 10 feet in front of them. I think in that situation is very sensible to wear a helmet.
When I'm tootling along at 10 miles an hour I don't think helmet is called for at all.

pootling at 10mph is where the helmet is most likely to protect you - of course you don't expect to fall off, do you. Low speed accidents happen to other people (like me, been thrown off by hidden potholes on more than one occasion). Of cpurse I respect your right to choose.

biondino

Intelligent people won't be distracted by wearing a helmet. Stupid people will be stupid whether they wear one or not (which means other methods of promoting cycle safety must come into play but not at the expense of helmet-wearing!). Pedestrian helmet use has nothing at all to do with cyclist helmet use. You may as well be talking about astronaut helmet use - it's a completely different topic.

Also, Jedster's helmet *worked*. Like, did what it was supposed to do. Even the naysayers accept that cycling helmets can work in the right kind of accident. He had one. How on earth can anyone try and use his experience to promote their anti-helmet agenda? They can't, obviously, so they try and negate the bleedingly obvious points gained by the pro-helmet school. This isn't a school debating society. People's lives are at risk.

spacey99

The problem with this helmet argument is it makes people think that cycling is inherently unsafe, which it isn't. Reading through the reams of posts on the subject would tell you about health benefits vs accidents, accident frequency and soforth which needn't be rehashed here.

However, all this doomongering around "if you go on a bike without a helmet you will die" must be putting people off. Sure if you race or moutainbike, a hat is probably a good idea. Commuting around town / general bike use - really? Again it is all personal choice but I would say it is hat people who "disseminate worrying and potentially misleading propaganda", probably to sell more hats.

Also on the subject of pros wearing them - they didn't until they were forced to, and does that mean we should wear fireproof overalls, a balaclava and crash helmet every time we drive a car?

All part of the ever decreasing tolerance of risk...

biondino

spacey99 wrote:

However, all this doomongering around "if you go on a bike without a helmet you will die" must be putting people off. Sure if you race or moutainbike, a hat is probably a good idea. Commuting around town / general bike use - really? Again it is all personal choice but I would say it is hat people who "disseminate worrying and potentially misleading propaganda", probably to sell more hats.

Good point, well made. But would you rather be told "if you wear a helmet you could prevent serious injury" or "whether you wear a helmet or not you could be seriously injured". I don't get a feeling that the various lobbies believe radically different things about the fundamental safeness of riding a bike.

The other thing is, helmets are designed, as *everyone* agrees, for low speed accidents, so actually it's the commuters and potterers who may feel the most benefits (apart from the mtbers, who are nutters in any case).

whome

"but not at the expense of helmet-wearing" - why not, helmet wearing doesn't have an effect on the injury figures of populations, so any benefit of helmets is insignificant. That is why helmets are a distraction - they don't make a noticible difference to the cycling population.

"People's lives are at risk." - and you imply that a helmet is going to help prevent deaths! The data would say it is not going to help KSI figures at all. So the suggestion that a helmet is a really useful piece of safety equipment is a distraction from real safety benefits.

whome

Pedestrian helmet use has nothing at all to do with cyclist helmet use.

The point is that cycling and walking have very similar safety records, so if you think cycling requires a helmet, why not walking. If you don't think walking requires a helmet, why does cycling. Again the figures for injuries are similar (higher per hour, lower per mile, but quite similar as I recall).

alfablue

If you extract head injuries to walkers whilst drunk from the data you might find walking is safer - maybe drunks should wear helmets though.

biondino

What about deep sea fishermen - I don't remember seeing any wearing helmets. (by whome's logic the helmets won't make any difference anyway so they'd be just as likely to need them).

It's facile. Start a thread about whether pedestrians should wear helmets. Then another thread about whether you should wear helmets in the home (where most accidents are) or at work (employers don't want to be liable for preventable injuries). You'll notice none of this has anything to do with bikes.

helmet wearing doesn't have an effect on the injury figures of populations

You really need to stop saying this, it's manifestly false.

alfablue

sorry, on Trawlerman they do wear helmets (maybe just for the cameras?)

whome

I presume you are arguing cycling and walking have very different injury profiles/reasons or something and therefore can't be compared. Others appear to think they can be compared and certainly the head injury rates seem to be similar.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582 - Three lessons for a better cycling future
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html - Relative risk in cycling
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html - How common is head injury when cycling?

Countries where helmet use has increased to high levels (due to helmet laws) have not shown an improvement in injury figures.

e.g. in the bmj article above - "When helmets were made compulsory in Australia, admissions from head injury fell by 15-20%, but the level of cycling fell by 35%." .


The main points though are cycling is a safe activity and helmets are not magic.

biondino

Well, we both agree on that.

But the pedestrians thing is a red herring because regardless of the similar places the accidents happen and a similar head injury rate, the pedestrians aren't riding a bike. If you want to compare the stats for people wheeling their bike along pavements with pedestrians, then that's something meaningful, if pointless. Or even pedestrians running down the gutter at 10-20mph. Otherwise, they're simply too different.

jedster

whome,

I see i one of your links that about 7% of all admissions with headinjuries are cycling related. Frankly I'm surprised it is so high. Cycling is a much less common and frequent activity than walking and driving (across the whole population) - I'd suggest that this means that cycling accounts for a disproportionate chare of A&E head injuries.

I think you mentioned that 6% of uk population are regualr cyclists and another 10% are occasional cyclists - the point is that even these people have the opportunity to present through walking and driving incidents.

BTW - I don't regard cycling as dangerous and know that it has huge net health benefits. It just seems to me that head injuries are a risk worth minimising (given the low cost of doing so).

J

BIGBADBEAR

My grandfather died through ahead injury from falling off his bike, my wife never knew her dad because he died after being hit by a car and sustaining head injuries.
the only major injury i sustained from cycling was a broken collar bone and two black eyes (from the helmet ) as i tried flying though a dry stone wall .

I always wear a helmet ,better than a shroud!

hugo15

I wear a helmet. Mrs Hugo15 insisted I wore one when I got back into cycling a few years ago. Just wear it out of habit now.

DonDaddyD

I watched the Tour of Ireland a few days back and saw a guy (he was second in the race) go around the corner lose control, fall, skid across the ground feet still attached to the bike and the top of his head firmly scrape the ground.

Now I probably won't be riding as fast as that guy and I'm probably not as skillfull a cyclist (I am) as that guy. But the truth is I'm not interested in Whome's statistics, fact is should I ever encounter a crash that sees my head hitting, sliding, scrapping the ground I want to know that its protected by a helmet so that should I survive there's a good chance I don't have to walk around with a skin graft or a massive scar on my head or worse.

Never have I witnessed the true value of a helmet than when watching that crash. Its not foolproof, its not 100%, but neither are seat belts, an air bag, crumple zones or a bumper. They are all precautions there to enhance safety and the chance of survival from certain injuries. In some cases they won't offer any protection from harm, sometimes they will be the difference between life and death and sometimes they will be the difference between walking away unharmed and having to go to the hospital to be bandaged up. Personally I'd rather have all those options available through wearing a helmet than none at all by not wearing a helmet. So I will continue to wear my helmet.

Brixtonbiker

I had a crash over the weekend and was very lucky i was wearing my Giro Atmos,
Hit a pot hole at 20mph and went straight over the bars. Landed on my forehead with a very hard impact. Had a rucksack full of shopping, (10kg) Which in also increased the impact force as that hit me on the back of the head too.

The helmet took the full impact.
When i took the helmet off to look at it.The foam inside was compressed. The helmet now had a flat front, the foam inside was cracked appart but was all still intact. The outer plactic has huge deep scatches.

Would have suffer horrendous head injurys without it on i am sure.

Appart from some bruising and losing skin on my arms, I was fine.

I will never go out without a helmet on if i can help it.

Although, got to ride home without it tonight as have to send it off for £50 replacement from Giro.

Tony

girv73

This morning I got whacked on the helmet by a stone thrown up by a passing car. The impact was enough to jerk my head to the side. Don't fancy getting that on my unprotected bonce!

Coriander

The problem with this debate is that it can (and doubtless will) go on for ever because we simply can't run a control to test the difference a helmet makes in our crashes and accidents. This means no-one can say categorically whether their helmet protected them from or contributed to injury.

alfablue

girv73 wrote:

This morning I got whacked on the helmet by a stone thrown up by a passing car. The impact was enough to jerk my head to the side. Don't fancy getting that on my unprotected bonce!

A good case for proper eye protection, too

biondino

I suggested to meanwhile in a previous thread that we do a controlled test using a hammer against my head (helmeted) and his head (bare), gradually increasing the impact speed, but he wasn't up for it for some reason.

Coriander

biondino wrote:

I suggested to meanwhile in a previous thread that we do a controlled test using a hammer against my head (helmeted) and his head (bare), gradually increasing the impact speed, but he wasn't up for it for some reason.

Ah, maybe you should have suggested that you start with impact speeds of over 12mph because then he'd have been fine, but your helmet would actually have made your injuries worse.

idaviesmoore

biondino wrote:

I suggested to meanwhile in a previous thread that we do a controlled test using a hammer against my head (helmeted) and his head (bare), gradually increasing the impact speed, but he wasn't up for it for some reason.

I'd pay money for THAT kind of action.....but I am Welsh

roger_merriman

is this thread still going....

one can trawl though various papers and reports, helmets don't seem to do much bar create threads.. so the evidence for them either saving or harming is not truly there, at least not in a black and white issue,

if you feel safer wearing one, feel free go knock your self out, and if you don't like wise.

alfablue

there is no way you can stop these threads, and in that sense, whilst we write our opinions we are safe in front of the computer, so surely helmets reduce accicents and injuries of all kinds (not just cycling ones).