Helmet, Yes or No?

always_tyred

The real danger with invincibility forcefields is that they cause your proteins to denature and you turn into a useless amino acid soup.

Also, the batteries are large and heavy.

Brixtonbiker

We have heard from a few people here who have hit their head on the road while wearing helmets voice an opinion.
I would like to know of anyone who does not wear a helmet and landed on their head tell us what it was like.

2wheelzgood

cue tumbleweed

boybiker

Brixtonbiker wrote:

We have heard from a few people here who have hit their head on the road while wearing helmets voice an opinion.
I would like to know of anyone who does not wear a helmet and landed on their head tell us what it was like.

I expect its difficult to type while connected to a life support machine.

wgwarburton

Hi,
We can anticipate a few "well, you obviously banged your head hard enough to affect your thinking, didn't you?" responses, I would think!

Firstly, if you are wearing a helmet your "head" is a lot bigger and quite a bit heavier. It stands to reason that you'll hit it more often! In fact, that's one of the many arguments against- your head is more likely to be stopped suddenly while your body continues to move, risking neck damage and the aforementioned rotational/internal brain injuries.

I've fallen off a few times over the last thirty-odd years. Rarely has my head hit anything (reflexes protect it very effectively!), but when it has the impact has usually been glancing (car pulls out, bike T-bones at speed (25mph minus emergency braking) and head hits bonnet/windscreen while rolling over car: small graze and/or bump results).
I hit a stone wall quite hard once, when I was young and stupid and failed to make a corner- my shoulder hurt for a good while afterwards and again, I had a bump on my head afterwards.

In my limited experience (I try to avoid clashing horns with the landscape) falling off a bike tends to result in either sliding (lateral skids), or rolling (endovers or forced dismount at speed). Either way, it's natural to tuck your head out of the way.

Note Dr. Mark Porter from the Evening Standard, quoted in the Guardian article way up the thread:

Dr Mark Porter defended Johnson's decision to cycle helmetless on the grounds that in over 20 years in medicine he had never had to treat a cyclist with a life-threatening head injury. "Indeed, the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation estimates that the average cyclist would have to pedal the roads for more than 3,000 years to suffer a serious head injury, let alone one that would be mitigated by a cycle helmet,"

Cheers,
W.

KitsuneAndy

I think a lot of the arguments stem from peoples perceptions and research done on your average cyclist.

I wouldn't consider anyone on these boards to be your average cyclist, anyone who joins a forum such as this is probably a lot better informed and enjoys cycling rather than someone who say has a bike to commute on, just because.

I'll find some links later when I'm not at work, but one of the reasons helmets are deemed to be 'dangerous' is that it gives the rider the impression that they will be safe no matter what. Therefore the rider takes more risks and is actually more likely to have some form f accident. Now, most people here will not do that. Your riding style probably won't change depending on whether you have a helmet on or not.

The other argument is that it gives the image of cycling being dangerous and therefore discourages others from getting into cycling.

I don't wear a helmet when commuting, but do when out on my MTB. For the simple fact that the situations in which I might fall off on my MTB are more likely to be those where a helmet will have the biggest impact. Whereas if I fall off on one of the busy roads I commute on, well, the helmet won't stop a couple of tonnes of metal hitting me.

However, if we have any icy conditions through the winter, I'll also wear the helmet for commuting, for the same reasons as above.

Brixtonbiker

KitsuneAndy, So what happens if you hit a patch of diesel on a wet road when its not icy on your commuite? Surely ice and diesel are just as hard to spot? Why protection for one and not the other?

biondino

Diesel is pretty easy to spot in the wet! But regardless there are always going to be unknown unknowns in whatever conditions.

Why do the naysayers just ignore the anecdotes on this threaD? Presumably because they're about as close to proof that helmets work (*in certain circumstances) that they're going to see so they have no argument?

wgwarburton

Hi,
This strikes me(!) as a very sensible approach- I don't know whether or not helmets are effective off-road, but you've clearly given it serious thought!

I'm intrigued by your comment:

> The other argument is that it gives the image of cycling being dangerous and therefore discourages others from getting into cycling.

I think this is part of what bothers me about the "helmet debate". I'm concerned that, regardless of the utility of helmets or the vexed issue of compulsion, the mere fact that helmets are considered by some (many?) to be needed is a deterrent to cycling.

Cycling isn't Dangerous! You don't need to wear a helmet on a bike any more than you do walking on a pavement or driving a car. There may be some situations where it'll help mitigate an injury, but not getting any exercise will do you much more harm...

It bothers me when someone says "you should wear a helmet or you'll get hurt", that perception and attitude prevents children cycling to school, and reduces the number of cyclists on the roads (safety in numbers and all that).

Cheers,
W.

alfablue

WGWarburton wrote:

Firstly, if you are wearing a helmet your "head" is a lot bigger and quite a bit heavier. It stands to reason that you'll hit it more often! In fact, that's one of the many arguments against- your head is more likely to be stopped suddenly while your body continues to move, risking neck damage and the aforementioned rotational/internal brain injuries.

I never buy this argument. The helmet is about 250g, the added size is about 3cm, I just don't believe that there is a dangerous collision that would occur if my head was bigger/heavier by those dimensions, that would not occur if it were not. Yes, an impact may happen, but if it were so slight that my head would not have made the impact if unhelmeted, then it is a very minor impact indeed.

number9

Since you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a pub than whilst cycling, I don't wear one.

Since there's evidence that drivers take more risks around helmetted riders, I don't wear one.

since, in nearly 20,000 miles of cycling my only injury was a bust rib, caused by an idiot ped, I don't wear one.

Since countries with helmet compulsion have lower rates of cycling, I don't wear one.

However, I'm prepared to concede on this, on the same day that drivers wear helmets, flame-proof suites and goggles every time they drive to the shops.

This is my compromise.

wgwarburton

Hi again,

Biondino writes:

> Why do the naysayers just ignore the anecdotes on this threaD? Presumably because they're about as close to proof that helmets work (*in certain circumstances) that they're going to see so they have no argument?

"The plural of anecdote is not data"

I can only speak for myself, but I don't find "common sense" and anecdotes very convincing in the face of the figures. It's very common to hear "helmet saved my life" stories, but they are clearly exaggerated or the population studies (Oz, Canada, New Zealand) would back them up.

Cycling is "safe", wearing a helmet might help in a small subset of circumstances, or it might make things worse. If helmets worked as well as they are claimed to there would be plenty of hard evidence to confirm it. That evidence just isn't there, in fact it appears that there are people fabricating it to support their agendas!

An ineffective solution to a non-existent problem.

Cheers,
W.

biondino

But WG, half a dozen intelligent and, let's assume, honest posters here have stated that they are sure their helmet significantly reduced potential head injury in actual, real accidents! I don't think you can ignore this?

Also, if it looks like a duck...

2wheelzgood

no benefit of wearing a helmet when cycling cf walking or driving a car?
are you nuts?
walking is quite safe and unless drunk I reckonmost people are steady, unaffected by diesel and the nutter overtaking pedestrian will not cause you to have to take seevre avoiding action!

a cycle and as pointed out most fo us are keen, will get up to 20+ mph and have to dice with cars pullout in front of you, peds walking out, glass, lack of adhesion on manhole covers in the rain.

as for a car, 2 tonnes of metal NCAP ratings and airbags give me a fair sense of cofdence in saying that I don't gain anythign by wearing a helmet.

I cannot really say the same for a cycle!


lol at hitting head with a lid when you'd not otherwise. Dunno about you, but my head is not that big! My shoulders tend to be wider

alfablue

number9 wrote:

Since you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a pub than whilst cycling, I don't wear one.

try cycling drunk and picking fights with motorists, that would be a bit more "comparing like with like"

since, in nearly 20,000 miles of cycling my only injury was a bust rib, caused by an idiot ped, I don't wear one.

Never had a burglary or house fire in 50 years, but I have burgler and fire alams - what a foolish waste of money, when making a judgement based on what hasn't happened in the past I can be absolutely sure that it will never happen in the future.

Jeez, I insure my bike too, but it has never been nicked!

always_tyred

This is all getting too reasonable.

Okay, so someone pipped me to making the point that 250g is only a large proportion of the mass of an airhead, but that would have just been a cheap shot.

the "helmets discourage cycling" thing probably has some basis, although I did get very stroppy last year with someone who was trying to accuse helmet wearers of being selfish and putting everyone at more risk by wearing one.

Again, I would have thought that motorists are liable to either see you, or not, rather than make any subjective evaluation of how close they can get to you on the basis of your attire. In fact, these days, I wonder if the visual signature of bike/helmet/glasses/cycling gear is more recognisable than bowler hat, suit and briefcase across luggage rack.

It might, however, make a difference to people contemplating cycling, as much as anything because having budgeted £90 for a great new bike from Halfords, they are told that an additional £10 is required for a helmet that makes you look like a tool.

number9

try cycling drunk and picking fights with motorists, that would be a bit more "comparing like with like"


If you are mad, yes.

Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Cycle helmets overview
If you're new to the site, read this first.


Risk and cycling
Is cycling risky? How does it compare with other activities? How common is head injury? Safety in Numbers.

Contradictory evidence about cycle helmets
Ambitious claims are made for cycle helmets, but how do they perform in the real world?
Papers for and against helmet effectiveness.

"A helmet saved my life!"
A common claim by helmet wearers, but is the truth so simple?

FAQ
Do helmets save lives? Is cycling without a helmet foolhardy? ... many more

Helmet laws
Are laws justified? What have they achieved?

Briefings
For legislators
Why helmets don't prevent 85% of head injuries
... more

Health
The health benefits of cycling.
Exceptional life expectancy of cyclists.

Opinion
What are the judgements of experts and the courts?
The BMJ helmet debate

Technical
How helmets work and their limitations

Is it coincidence that the countries with more and safer cycling are where fewest cyclists wear helmets? Is there a connection with obesity?
Analysis
Changes in cycle use in Australia

A comprehensive look at how cycle use has changed since the helmet laws.

Australia: the world's fattest nation

Read what this to has to do with cycle helmets.

BMA 2008 – science or non-science?

BHRF looks at a selective review of helmets for the BMA's Board of Science that relies heavily on the use of discredited and anecdotal evidence.

City Bikes and helmets

How helmet laws could de-rail the City Bike revolution

TRL confirms helmets may increase severity of injuries

Our review analyses the findings and takes a wider look at rotational injuries.

Safety in numbers
High life expectancy confirms low risk in cycling

Two sets of evidence that cycling is a low-risk activity which gets safer when more people cycle

biondino

And now give us a link to a site without an anti-helmet agenda.

alfablue

yes, i have read all of that, inconclusive for various methodological and logical flaws, on both sides.

No to compulsion, Yes to choice.

But don't mock and ridicule those that choose to wear helmets because the evidence is no more on your side than the pro-helmet side.

wgwarburton

Hi again,

Biondino:

> But WG, half a dozen intelligent and, let's assume, honest posters here have stated
> that they are sure their helmet significantly reduced potential head injury in actual, real
> accidents! I don't think you can ignore this?

I don't doubt their sincerity, but I do think that if life-threatening head injuries were as common as suggested there would be carnage amongst non-helmet wearers. helmets are a recent development, but cyclists have been surviving crashes for a long, long time.
Check the "helmet saved my life" link on the website that NUMBER9 just posted.

2wheelzgood:

> no benefit of wearing a helmet when cycling cf walking or driving a car?
are you nuts?

Umm, no: check the research. There's more benefit from wearing a helmet when walking or driving than cycling. As with all statistics it depends how you slice up the numbers, but it's certainly not as clear cut as you suggest.

Cheers,
W.

number9

biondino wrote:

And now give us a link to a site without an anti-helmet agenda.

What's your evidence there's any agenda whatsoever on that site please?

Nobody gains from NOT wearing a helmet, it's the other way round!

biondino

W, I don't think we're necessarily talking about life-threatening injuries, but if you broke your nose, or had to have facial stitches, or ripped off a load of hair, or got concussed, wouldn't you rather not? Once again the naysayers are focusing on a very specific kind of injury rather than the whole spectrum which includes, inconveniently, the vast majority of minor head injuries which in most cases WILL be prevented or ameliorated by wearing a helmet.

number9

alfablue wrote:

yes, i have read all of that, inconclusive for various methodological and logical flaws, on both sides.

No to compulsion, Yes to choice.

But don't mock and ridicule those that choose to wear helmets because the evidence is no more on your side than the pro-helmet side.

Blimey, this thread's long on opinion, short on evidence.

What on earth is your evidence that all those studies are "flawed"?

number9

in most cases WILL be prevented or ameliorated by wearing a helmet.


Evidence, please.

alfablue

number9 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

yes, i have read all of that, inconclusive for various methodological and logical flaws, on both sides.

No to compulsion, Yes to choice.

But don't mock and ridicule those that choose to wear helmets because the evidence is no more on your side than the pro-helmet side.

Blimey, this thread's long on opinion, short on evidence.

What on earth is your evidence that all those studies are "flawed"?

You just have to read them, there are problems with design, sampling, data collection and measurement in all of them, the evidence of the flaws is in the studies themselves. I am not dissing the researchers, these issues are incredibly difficult to research.

Just one (of several) issue with Ian Walker's study - who collected the data? Ian Walker - experimenter effect?

wgwarburton

biondino:

> W, I don't think we're necessarily talking about life-threatening injuries, but if you broke your nose, or had to have facial stitches, or ripped off a load of hair, or got concussed, wouldn't you rather not?

To be honest- I'm not that bothered about superficial injuries. Sufficiently rare not to be a major concern and they heal quickly enough.
I'm much more exercised about the increased risk from cars, possible risk-compensation issues and the potential (or possibility) of increased serious brain injuries.

Cheers,
W.

number9

You just have to read them,

No.

You made a claim.

You don't ask other people to prove it for you.

alfablue

number9 wrote:

You just have to read them,

No.

You made a claim.

You don't ask other people to prove it for you.

Well, how long would you like this thread to be? Are you suggesting I publish a complete systematic review of all the relevant published research in my next post? I have posted but one example, but to be honest, if you are citing evidence you should be prepared to read it yourself and evaluate it against appropriate critiquing criteria. By the way, it is far easier to find flaws in research than to undertake a flawless study, so we have to do the best with the evidence we have, it is not flawless, so we mustn't overstate it's validity.

biondino

Fair enough W - everyone has different priorities with risk. I suspect riding a low-slung racing bike wearing lycra will give drivers an idea about me far more than my helmet will so maybe that's less of a consideration.

Number9, I'm sorry, the evidence is in many of the studies referred to above in that "unbiased" collection of articles. And in this thread (unless you don't count "this actually happened, to me" anecdotes as worthy of your attention). Even the antis focus on risk compensation, brain injury and factors such as putting people off riding when they're making their arguments. Helmets are designed to withstand low-speed impacts and certainly in previous threads of this kind, no-one has disagreed that in low-speed accidents they are very likely to be a good thing.

Feel free to come up with minor accidents involving people's heads where they'd be no better off with a helmet. A chin-plant, for example. a kerb hitting you in the teeth. Simply by nature of the shape of a helmet, most accidents other than chin-first ones or ones where other obstacles (rocks, kerbs etc) impact first will make first contact with the lip or body of the helmet, and I don't have tissue there.

number9

Number9, I'm sorry, the evidence is in many of the studies referred to above in that "unbiased" collection of articles.

Yeah, people keep saying that and when I ask for specifics there's a deafening silence...


I have an open mind, read the evidence, made a decisions.

You have a closed mind, repeatedly claim the evidence is skewed, and refuse to say where or how this bias exists.


Ho hum.