Helmet, Yes or No?

always_tyred

Bears really do scamper. One scampered across the road in front of me once. You wouldn't have thought a 400lb omnivore would be able to scamper, but somehow they manage it.

wgwarburton

Hi,
I'm talking about road cycling, here, not trail riding.

Firstly, cycling is fundamentally pretty safe. It may feel dangerous when vehicles whizz past at speed but statistically you are very unlikely to be seriously injured when cycling.

Secondly, there seems to be a very widespread assumption in this thread that helmets work (ie you are less likely to be injured wearing one than not).

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard evidence to back this up, though. Just a lot of anecdotes, "common sense" and intuition, often espoused by people who ought to know better.

If helmets actually reduced the risk of serious head injuries, there would be plenty of evidence to back it up, but it just isn't there. Maybe they reduce the incidence of cuts & bruises, but against that it seems that they increase the risk of a serious accident (cars pass closer, risk-compensation etc) and may increase the severity of injuries that do occur (rotational impacts, whiplash etc).

So, it seems to me that we have an ineffective solution to a nonexistant problem.

So, I don't (normally) wear a helmet, and I wonder about the thought processes of those who do.

Cheers,
W.

biondino

WGWarburton wrote:

Secondly, there seems to be a very widespread assumption in this thread that helmets work (ie you are less likely to be injured wearing one than not).

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard evidence to back this up, though. Just a lot of anecdotes, "common sense" and intuition, often espoused by people who ought to know better.

Well, most of us aren't statisticians or research scientists so I'm afraid we can't give you the hard evidence you require (NB you haven't give any hard evidence either. In fact you don't even have any anecdotes!). However, since all we do have are anecdotes*, the great majority of which leave the helmet wearer in no doubt as to how much worse their injury could have been had they not been wearing one, I'm going to start taking them seriously.

Have a look at the "how many accidents have you had" thread. Half the respondents have had more than one, a quarter have had one, and a quarter have had none. Accidents happen regardless how safe cycling is and when they happen, take whatever precautions you think necessary to look after yourself.

Don't wear a helmet, that's fine. Are you trying to save other people £40? Do you find they look so ugly as to spoil your view? Or do you have a completely incomprehensible agenda against an item which without a shadow of a doubt can help prevent injuries from mild to serious?


*my anecdote is that in the two nasty accidents I've had, I didn't bang my head at all. In one, I landed, somehow, on my feet; in the other I have no idea how my head didn't make contact with the tarmac but I'm thrilled it didn't because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Do either of these make me think helmets are dumb? No, because in the next one - and there will be a next one - a helmet may well make all the difference.

boybiker

biondino wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Secondly, there seems to be a very widespread assumption in this thread that helmets work (ie you are less likely to be injured wearing one than not).

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard evidence to back this up, though. Just a lot of anecdotes, "common sense" and intuition, often espoused by people who ought to know better.

Well, most of us aren't statisticians or research scientists so I'm afraid we can't give you the hard evidence you require (NB you haven't give any hard evidence either. In fact you don't even have any anecdotes!). However, since all we do have are anecdotes*, the great majority of which leave the helmet wearer in no doubt as to how much worse their injury could have been had they not been wearing one, I'm going to start taking them seriously.

Have a look at the "how many accidents have you had" thread. Half the respondents have had more than one, a quarter have had one, and a quarter have had none. Accidents happen regardless how safe cycling is and when they happen, take whatever precautions you think necessary to look after yourself.

Don't wear a helmet, that's fine. Are you trying to save other people £40? Do you find they look so ugly as to spoil your view? Or do you have a completely incomprehensible agenda against an item which without a shadow of a doubt can help prevent injuries from mild to serious?


*my anecdote is that in the two nasty accidents I've had, I didn't bang my head at all. In one, I landed, somehow, on my feet; in the other I have no idea how my head didn't make contact with the tarmac but I'm thrilled it didn't because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Do either of these make me think helmets are dumb? No, because in the next one - and there will be a next one - a helmet may well make all the difference.

Well said and my own experience of seeing people from my club walk away from crashes which have split their helmets open rather than their heads makes me vote for wearing one too.

singlespeedexplosif

crashes which have split their helmets open

so crashes in which their helmets have failed, you mean?

always_tyred

How often do we have to go on about this -

If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times; it is possible to encounted a bear whilst on a road. This happened to me. Like I said, it scampered.

biondino

Take a sheet of plastic. Bend it to the point where it cracks. Notice substantial vibrations, deformation and sound. That's energy being dissipated!

What about accidents where the helmet splits but the protective layer absorbs energy as it's supposed to? That's not even slightly a failure. If the helmet cracks, splits and the head inside then hits the ground etc. at barely reduced velocity, then the helmet's not going to make much of a difference, but if it cracks and stays at least partly together then the energy's got to go somewhere and that somewhere is not from skull to tarmac.

Simonb256

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

crashes which have split their helmets open

so crashes in which their helmets have failed, you mean?

The helmet hasnt failed in this scenario though, its meant to splt/self destruct. This was it takes the force out of the impact, rather than jsut passing it onto your head, where it would suit little purpose.

boybiker

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

crashes which have split their helmets open

so crashes in which their helmets have failed, you mean?

No..... the helmet is designed to absorb the energy of the impact which it clearly did , the fact that the helmet broke suggests that the impact was harder than the helmet was designed to withstand, obviously any helmet will break if you hit it hard enough.

singlespeedexplosif

What about accidents where the helmet splits but the protective layer absorbs energy as it's supposed to? That's not even slightly a failure.

In that sort of accident, that's very true, and a good point.

the fact that the helmet broke suggests that the impact was harder than the helmet was designed to withstand,

not at all.

The helmet hasnt failed in this scenario though, its meant to splt

no it's not. it's meant to crush.

linsen

I wear a helmet. I do't know what I look like in it because I'm on a bike and not caring when it's on my head. I have fallen off my bike over the front handlebars (into an uncovered drain - don't get me started!) and I hit my head. i know it would have hurt more if my head had hit the road. I don't really know why we have this debate. You don't see people on horses without adequate protection, and no-one seems to question that. Surely if something is on my head when it hits something hard that is better than skull to tarmac? Besides which, I think if you look like you're taking safety seriously, ie wearing lots of noticeable gear, then maybe drivers will take you seriously too. I live in hope.....

For the record, I have shaved legs like a girl because I am a girl!

jedster

SSE,

in my recent crash (page back if you're interested, it's described earlier) the outer skin of the helmet was intact, the foam was compressed and cracked (visible from the inside). I assumed that the foam had compressed as far as it was able to before splitting.

I think this is what people commonly mean by splitting a helmet but I have heard of accidents when people end up with the helmet in two parts.

Cheers,

J

boybiker

I wouldn't assume anything about what goes through the minds of some drivers when they see a cyclist, but it is a good point if you rode a motorbike without a helmet you could expect to be stopped by the police and cautioned at the very least so I don't see why its any different for cyclists.

jedster

WGW,

So, it seems to me that we have an ineffective solution to a nonexistant problem.

So, I don't (normally) wear a helmet, and I wonder about the thought processes of those who do.

well that sounds rather obnoxious!

If you are really interested, earlier in this thread you'll find a fairly length description of a recent accident and my observations about the merits and limitations of helmets and why I think its worth wearing one. Let me know what you think.

If on the other hand you're just smugly accusing helmet wearers of being silly and irrational then please just act your age.

I have SOME sympathy with the view that we have no good evidence that helmets do much good at the population level. There is also no good evidence that they don't help as far as I can see. In fact the statistical work that I have seen has not been very authoratative.

In general I think it is likely that helmets give limited but potentially valuable protection in some cycling accidents and think the cases in which they make accidents worse (e.g., rotational injuries) are less common. I think that risk compensation IS a problem when wearing a helmet but in my judgment about MY riding behaviour, I think the protection benefits outweigh the increased risk.

I don't have any proof that my judgments are right but nor do you have any that they are not . I don't think you can argue that my point of view is illogical.

J

secretsam

One quick point - I'm a yes, I think they must help - BUT only if worn correctly ie covering the relevant bits (ie not worn like a beret on the back of the head) and with the straps done up so it's on snugly - like a motorbike lid, they are no use if they fall off! This may be the reason why the clinical evidence (such as it is) is inconclusive - my observation of folk in London is half of them don't wear them correctly...

2wheelzgood

Shall we tell the ASO they do not need to bother making the riders on tours wear lids any more as us armchair (hmm more like desk) lawyers/experts know they don't work?!
esp as they are over 9mph 99% of the time. :roll:

wgwarburton

JEDSTER wrote

> well that sounds rather obnoxious!

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive. From what I've read on the topic it appears to me that what evidence there is strongly suggests that helmets are more of a liability than an asset, so I do genuinely look at helmet wearers and wonder what makes them think otherwise. Not "look at that fool" but "I wonder how that person decided to wear that?".
Fair enough, in competition (required by the rules) or off-road (more dangerous) but why on a normal road ride?

> I don't have any proof that my judgments are right but nor do you have any that they are not . I don't think you can argue that my point of view is illogical.

Fair enough. The evidence is subject to interpretation, I concede, but the population studies seem pretty damning to me and the behavioral stuff reinforces that.

How many poeple on this thread have said they don't feel safe without a helmet? If you think you are at risk, then feeling safe is the last thing you want!! :-)

Cheers,
W.

secretsam

WGWarburton wrote:

How many poeple on this thread have said they don't feel safe without a helmet? If you think you are at risk, then feeling safe is the last thing you want!! :-)

By the same logic, no-one should wear a condom to feel safe about not catching an STI...

2wheelzgood

I think I'd feel unsafe mainly cos I am pretty sure it's do me some damage if I hit my head on that soft soft tarmac.
Whereas if I were wearing alid, I'd be less at risk. so why the need to feel (as) unsafe?

TBH a decent cyclist shouldn't feel unsafe, just be aware of the inherent risks. If I felt unsafe with without lid, due to risk of cars crahing into me, trye blowing out at 25mph etc, I would get the bus.

Can we not accept it's risk assessment each of us makes (heopfully) and rides hwo we want to. Much like the issue of protective clothing on motorbikes, not enforced but hell, IMHO silly to not use it. Some however have decent that when it's hot, jeans is an OK trade off.. etc.

I don't take risks BECAUSE I wear a lid. I wear a lid to minimise the damage if something were to happen. You cannot control everything on the roads.

Fair enough SOME people may ride different with a lid cf without but I don't think I do/would.

So some no wearers claim that they are only good as tested to a certain (low) speed, whereas others say OK to use in races due to higher speeds involved.. hmm.

I reckon even if it doesn't save you completely at anything over 5mph, every little helps, no?
Certainly would've save a mate getting a headgash from his pedal as his bike attacked him a few weeks ago.

2wheelzgood

SecretSam wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

How many poeple on this thread have said they don't feel safe without a helmet? If you think you are at risk, then feeling safe is the last thing you want!! :-)

By the same logic, no-one should wear a condom to feel safe about not catching an STI...

sweet

or car seatbelts?

edit.. not that seatbelts carry disease!

jedster

WGW,

From what I've read on the topic it appears to me that what evidence there is strongly suggests that helmets are more of a liability than an asset

Really? I'm surprised at that. I can buy "from what I've read I see no evidence that they are more of an asset than a liability" but I've seen no evidence that they do net harm.
Can you point me to something?

J

ChasleeMTB

it doesnt matter wat u look like.... u need to be safe and enjoy the sport as much as possible without little injury!

if u was to come off just going slow as and u stumble and hit your head without a helmet... the force could be really bad

always_tyred

SecretSam wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

How many poeple on this thread have said they don't feel safe without a helmet? If you think you are at risk, then feeling safe is the last thing you want!! :-)

By the same logic, no-one should wear a condom to feel safe about not catching an STI...

I agree that the seals on some components are inadequate, but this solution is new to me.

wgwarburton

Hi,
SecterSam writes:
> By the same logic, no-one should wear a condom to feel safe about not catching an STI...

:-) Nice.. But there's clear evidence that condoms reduce STDs, not so with helmets (Maybe no-one's done the research but I do suspect you'd be less likely to catch an STD if you kept a helmet on all night..!

How about if wearing a condom appeared to reduce the risk of Syphylis & Chlamydia but there was evidence that it increased the risk of AIDS and Hep-B? Would you still wear one?

Anyway, that's missing the point- if you feel safer when helmeted you arn't as careful as you would be otherwise. This is subconcious and increases your overall exposure to risk. The classic risk compensation argument. It's easy to thiink that it won't affect you but it's subconcious... Would you ride differently if you took your helmet off? If so, then by definition it's affecting your behavior.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
SecterSam writes:
> By the same logic, no-one should wear a condom to feel safe about not catching an STI...

:-) Nice.. But there's clear evidence that condoms reduce STDs, not so with helmets (Maybe no-one's done the research but I do suspect you'd be less likely to catch an STD if you kept a helmet on all night..!

How about if wearing a condom appeared to reduce the risk of Syphylis & Chlamydia but there was evidence that it increased the risk of AIDS and Hep-B? Would you still wear one?

Anyway, that's missing the point- if you feel safer when helmeted you arn't as careful as you would be otherwise. This is subconcious and increases your overall exposure to risk. The classic risk compensation argument. It's easy to thiink that it won't affect you but it's subconcious... Would you ride differently if you took your helmet off? If so, then by definition it's affecting your behavior.

Cheers,
W.

That's the funny thing about this debate - there's so much irony.

Just so you know, the "classic risk compensation argument" is just that, an argument. Arguably there is no more factual basis in this argument than the arguments that you have so eloquently argued against earlier in the same post.

I'm not trying to be argumentative.

(Oh, and by the way, once the very temporary novelty of not wearing a helmet/wearing a helmet wore off, I would argue that you would not, in fact, ride any differently. My own experience of cycling in traffic is that, when assessing risks, I'm thinking simply "am I going to make it?" and not, "am I going to have a greater or lesser probability of surviving this with or without my helmet if it all goes wrong and my journey terminates abruptly?" And don't dare come back with "its subconscious so you can help it", since this would be an infuriating load of dogma. There's nothing more or less significant about the "dangers" of wearing a helmet than the well documented phenomenon, for example, of being more lilkely to have a car accident when driving an unfamiliar car.)

boybiker

Well the easy way to settle the argument for once is we get someone from the 'helmets don't work and they twist your brain' brigade and someone from the helmets are better than nothing brigade and we give them each a concrete paving slab and 5 minutes to hit the other person over the head with it and after 5 minutes we see who is still standing and who has the least twisted brain.
I would have thought that the twisted brainers would come off worst but I am prepared to be proved wrong.

always_tyred

I've suggest this in the past, but aparrently it proves nothing, since hitting a concrete slab against your head doesn't simulate the real world event of hitting your head on a concrete slab. I've even offered to swing the concrete slab in at an angle, and to hit people with the corners of bricks too, but no one will take me up on it.

Not withstanding that fact that the only reason you would have an accident in the first place is because you are wearing a helmet and you are so stupid that you confuse this with an invincibility forcefield and cycle like you are in a computer game.

secretsam

Would I be right in thinking that there are some entrenched views here? In which case, unless someone has robust, independent medical research into the efficacy of helmets, no-one is going to change their minds.

biondino

Always Tyred wrote:

Not withstanding that fact that the only reason you would have an accident in the first place is because you are wearing a helmet and you are so stupid that you confuse this with an invincibility forcefield and cycle like you are in a computer game.

Bagsy starting the "invincibility forcefields: do they cause rotational brain injury?" thread.

boybiker

Well if the rotational brain lot aren't prepared to be hit over the heads with concrete paving slabs then they don't have a leg to stand on if you ask me.
As for only stupid/bad cyclists having accidents I know one guy who was riding a 25 mile time trail when some twunt in a van turned right across him as he was doing about 30 down hill which resulted in the inevitable head on crash and as he was wearing a helmet he survived the experience.