Helmet or no helmet?

arankapila

Some good arguments on here...

As other people have already said, I guess it comes down to: do you ever think it will happen to you?

If you don't... then there is no point wearing one! I guess you are beyond reaching, or perhaps too arrogant to acknowledge that something could happen to you.

There are also those people who acknowledge that something could happen, but the chances are so slim that it isn't worth the hassle of the helmet.

To be totally honest, I knew few people who think like those above. What I do know though, is that there are many people who have the ridiculous outlook of, 'I was only popping down the shops,' or, 'It was all offroad, so there weren't any cars.'

These sorts of situations where are often where people will wear flip-flops or hop off kerbs into the road- basically situations where they actually ride more recklessly thatn if they were wearing helmets. Anyone make sense of that?

My view on it is that, if there is anyway of reducing or preventing injury, then surely you would be a fool not to take it?

neeb

One "interesting" issue that doesn't seem to be mentioned too often, is the efficacy of helmets in lower energy "solo offs" (no vehicle involved) when travelling above 12 mph - ie - a solo training ride or club run - Rider comes off at 16, 18, 20, 22 mph - Rider's head cracks the ground hard - anecdotally, it seems that helmets in most cases appear to save the rider from possible concussion/certain head cuts (Many of us have seen or experienced this - thousands of accounts on bike forums over the last 10 years etc..). So, anecdotally at least, helmets do seem to have a use in protecting the head (from possible concussion/certain head cuts) in solo-off lower energy impacts above 12 mph.

Probably there has been no research done into this, as most studies seem to focus on commuters. Of course, just because you come off at 20mph doesn't mean your head hits the ground at 20mph; chances are another part of your body hits the ground first and decelerates you before your head hits (same goes for some car-bike accidents probably). It may be that the vast majority of head injuries from cycling, at whatever speed the bike was travelling, are due to head impacts at less than 12mph. And of course a 12mph head injury can still be very nasty.

neeb

Also of course, even if your head is the first thing to hit the ground, it isn't going to hit at 20mph as it isn't traveling at this speed in relation to the direction of the impact (unless you are unlucky enough to hit a bollard, a wall or whatever).

FJS

Underscore wrote:

There are two things that affect my decision to wear a helmet and neither has been mentioned yet in this thread:

• A study in Australia where helmet use was made compulsory found three things that I consider germane: 1) Bike use reduced, 2) there was no reduction in serious head injuries, and 3) there was a reduction in minor head injuries (cuts and abrasions). Personally, I'll take a reduced chance of a minor head injury
• A study has shown that helmets are beneficial for children travelling at <12mph. Since I have 3 offspring in this category, I lead by example. It would appear hypocritical for me to demand that they wear a helmet if I do not

So I choose to wear a helmet but strongly object to any compulsory helmet legislation.

_

I agree 100 %!
Most posters here seem to argue from a dedicated recreational/sports/long-distance commuter perspective. Many people use a bike for casual short distances, are not very dedicated cyclists, and will only take on cycling if it won't be a hassle and if they won't have to look silly; and if that is something that we want to stimulate, instead of arguing loudly that everyone should wear a helmet, we should be arguing loudly that road infrastructure should be adapted to cycling and car drivers endangering the lives of cyclists on a daily basis should be hanged, dismembered, necklaced, etc.

singlespeedexplosif

My view on it is that, if there is anyway of reducing or preventing injury, then surely you would be a fool not to take it?


Never leaving your house would be a good way of reducing or preventing a lot of injuries..will you be adopting this lifestyle?

biondino

Cunobelin wrote:

Which is exactly where pedestrian falls / trips mainly fit..... lack of cars, lower speeds falls from low heights, and a tendency to underestimate the potentia;l injury and its effects - these are just the reasons for introducing pedestrian helmets?

By all means report back your findings from a pedestrian forum where this is a relevant discussion.

cougie

Damn SSE beat me to it.

The more we make cycling into a 'danger activity' then the less people will take it up.

More people cycling gives us drivers better used to dealing with cyclists. So its safer all round.

Cunobelin

biondino wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Which is exactly where pedestrian falls / trips mainly fit..... lack of cars, lower speeds falls from low heights, and a tendency to underestimate the potentia;l injury and its effects - these are just the reasons for introducing pedestrian helmets?

By all means report back your findings from a pedestrian forum where this is a relevant discussion.

Denial?

Much easier than discussing the points raised.

arankapila

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

My view on it is that, if there is anyway of reducing or preventing injury, then surely you would be a fool not to take it?


Never leaving your house would be a good way of reducing or preventing a lot of injuries..will you be adopting this lifestyle? [/quote

No I won't be. But as cycling is the most risky thing I do on a daily basis, it is worth reducing some of that risk. Especially as I cycle many in London and otherwise offroad.

Same as if I was in a car I would wear a seatbelt. Or skiing a helmet or watersports: a buoyancy aid.

Eau Rouge

cougie wrote:

Damn SSE beat me to it.

The more we make cycling into a 'danger activity' then the less people will take it up.

More people cycling gives us drivers better used to dealing with cyclists. So its safer all round.

There is already a widespread perception amongst non-cyclists that it's very dangerous, far more dangerous than we cyclists know it to be. Denying that there are real dangers in cycling, to somehow trick people into riding, is not exactly the way forward though.

I don't see why there is any debate over this though. There is nowhere near enough evidence to justify making them compulsory (and it would be the solid horse-riding style ones you make compulsory anyway, not the current cycling helmets in the shops) so it's your personal choice. There is no right or wrong answer. Personally, I couldn't see any half-decent reason not to wear one, so I do.

sub55

roger_merriman

heh! one thing we probably all can agree on is helmets are a hot topic and a post maker...

carbonfiend

My story quickly descending with my mate after 4 hour ride just about to reach the bottom of the hill when from out of our left black porshe pulls directly in front of us my mate hits the car I (behind him) run into him and flung into the road on my left into on coming trafiic. The first thing that hit the floor was my head then my shoulder followed by my pelvis. I broke my collar bone and pelvis which gives you an idea of the strength of the impact and these weren't what took the intial impact. My helmet was mashed up cracked in two but amazingly no injury to my head. There is no doubt in my mind that without that helmet I would be dead.

singlespeedexplosif

arankapila wrote:

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

My view on it is that, if there is anyway of reducing or preventing injury, then surely you would be a fool not to take it?


Never leaving your house would be a good way of reducing or preventing a lot of injuries..will you be adopting this lifestyle? [/quote

No I won't be. But as cycling is the most risky thing I do on a daily basis, it is worth reducing some of that risk. Especially as I cycle many in London and otherwise offroad.

Same as if I was in a car I would wear a seatbelt. Or skiing a helmet or watersports: a buoyancy aid.

that certainly fits with 'reducing some of that risk', but not 'any way of reducing or preventing injury'. Otherwise you'd be a fool not to wear a helmet in a car. And use a spinal board at all times. Whilst in one of those giant inflatable bubbles. In a big room full of bubblewrap.

doyler78

I wear mine all the time. When I started cycling 4 years ago I did wear one sometimes and then other times I didn't bother. I have no idea why I would choose to wear it sometimes and not others and why I suddenly started wearing it more frequently to the point where it is just one of the other bits of kit that goes on. I suspect it was work colleagues constantly mentioning when I didn't wear the helmet it put it my mind more.

I personally wouldn't make it compulsory because there are a lot of pavement cyclists out there who ride around in their normal clothing who never go near a road and who do real low speeds. Their chances of serious injury through falling of their bike is severely limited and therefore it would be an over reaction to force them to wear them even if you don't consider their benefits whether perceived or real. In trying to make the world a safer place at times we at times impede too much on people's right to just get on with their lives and to make informed adult decisions.

The argument that intrigues me more than other argument is about driver and rider perceptions to risk when the rider is or isn't wearing at helmet. Does the driver take more care around non helmeted riders and does the rider him/herself take more care when riding without a helmet? Interesting question.

I know that at night I feel much safer as regards the traffic around me than I do during daylight hours as I find cars give me much more room and that is probably down to being much more visible with all the lights and high viz stuff when riding in the same road position as I do in daylight hours. I know that you could argue that my poor visibility during daylight hours is down to my poor road positioning but that in itself doesn't really explain it as the road positioning is the same irrespective of the time of day.

trickeyja

I wear it, protects me, doesn't bother me. If I don't wear it I notice immediately because of my hair blowing around.

In France this summer, I was not wearing a helmet for 2 weeks (borrowing bike). Getting used to the other side of road was easy but at one point I tried to move onto the cycle path but it didn't notice it was slightly raised and I was sent flying - someone asked if I was alright in French... hardly hurt really. I'm not sure how effective the helmet would be but I like to have it as a precaution.

Cunobelin

doyler78 wrote:

The argument that intrigues me more than other argument is about driver and rider perceptions to risk when the rider is or isn't wearing at helmet. Does the driver take more care around non helmeted riders and does the rider him/herself take more care when riding without a helmet? Interesting question. .

Dr Ian Walker showed that helmeted cyclists are given less room by drivers, and this was backed up to a certain extent by DfT ork on drivers perception of cyclists. They found that drivers felt helmeted lycra wearing cyclists to be "more" experienced and therefore there was no need to slow down or give room when overtaking as they did not "need" these concessions.

howiejmidlands

For me, every time now i ride, wear a helmet.
26 years ago, i remember arguing with a commissar at a race why i shouldnt waer one.

Today, at a club lunch, a group of riders went out and 4 came down on ice. One guy said his head hurt where he hit it on the road, wearing his helmet. SO a sore head with a helmet, without....who knows.

For me, every time now. But if you dont want to wear one, its your choice, I wont bleat about it.

rally200

Own up, (apart from in the height of summer) any one who protests too much about helmets is really only bothered about how they look. I wouldn't wear one for precisely that reason - until the first time I went cycling with a group and realised I looked stupid as the only one without a helmet.

Also - the people who say "i'm too good to fall off slowly & if a car hits me its curtains anyway" - is every collision caused by a car driver a head on at 30mph + ?

As someone who once flew right over the roof of a mini I can tell you that by the time I hit the ground I was going a lot slower than when I first hit it. (i.e. my head didn''t hit the car)

As someone says above wear a lid & theres a chance it might save you - why not take that chance.

doyler78

rally200 wrote:

As someone says above wear a lid & theres a chance it might save you - why not take that chance.

But what if by wearing the helmet you increase your risk of getting injured...is that worth the chance....

There are no rights or wrongs only your own judgement and that's the way it should remain.

whyamihere

rally200 wrote:

Also - the people who say "i'm too good to fall off slowly & if a car hits me its curtains anyway" - is every collision caused by a car driver a head on at 30mph + ?

As someone who once flew right over the roof of a mini I can tell you that by the time I hit the ground I was going a lot slower than when I first hit it. (i.e. my head didn''t hit the car)

This is basically referring to my point. I don't believe that a helmet will do any good in a fatal impact. They're just not strong enough. A full face mountain bike or motorbike helmet, maybe. A road helmet, no. However, I DO wear a helmet, every time I'm on the bike. While I don't believe that a helmet will save my life, I do most definitely believe that it can prevent some fairly nasty head injuries. I'm most definitely against compulsion though. Let people choose.

daver1

I always wear a helmet. I live in Australia at the moment so it is a legal requirement but I would do it anyway. It is a matter of personal choice but I don't see any disadvantages for myself.

Dr Ian Walker's research was interesting but hardly conclusive in terms of whether you are in more danger from motorists when wearing a helmet. If you read the full paper and consider the effect of road position, driver type, gender (dictated by wig) and time of day it's unlikely you'll decide that wearing a helmet makes a significant difference in terms of how close a vehicle will come to you when passing.

"Dr. Walker notes that the average passing distance was 4.5 feet for black cars and 4.1 feet for white trade vans. The difference of 3.3 inches fades to insignificance with passing clearances that good."

"Other findings from the study make it plain that the cyclist's position on the roadway (distance from the edge) made more difference than the wearing of a helmet."

FJS

carbonfiend wrote:

My story quickly descending with my mate after 4 hour ride just about to reach the bottom of the hill when from out of our left black porshe pulls directly in front of us my mate hits the car I (behind him) run into him and flung into the road on my left into on coming trafiic. The first thing that hit the floor was my head then my shoulder followed by my pelvis. I broke my collar bone and pelvis which gives you an idea of the strength of the impact and these weren't what took the intial impact. My helmet was mashed up cracked in two but amazingly no injury to my head. There is no doubt in my mind that without that helmet I would be dead.

Which is the typical story to argue for helmet wearing; and for the same reason I use one; but shouldn't the larger question be whether the porsche driver should ever be allowed on the road (or out of jail) again, having attempted to kill someone, instead of innocent cyclists protecting themselves like michelin men....
I don't wear a k nife-proof jacket when I go out because some lunatic might attack me with a knife on a saturday night? why should it be for cyclcists to protect themselves when it's car drivers and town planners who put our lives in danger?

FJS

DaveR1 wrote:

I always wear a helmet. I live in Australia at the moment so it is a legal requirement but I would do it anyway. It is a matter of personal choice but I don't see any disadvantages for myself.

Making a helmet compulsory makes the bicycle becoming a majority mainstream vehicle an impossibibility. Having lived in a country where cycling is marginal (UK) after living in a country where it is mainstream (NL) I realise how important that multitude is for safety in the long run. I don't envy cyclists in countries where a helmet has become necessary and compulsory... best of luck..

jeffhope

Since there's a couple of fellow Aussies posting, I feel like I can add my 2cents

In Australia, the authorities and the "cycling advocacy" groups go around, effectively telling people that cycling is a horribly dangerous activity:
Explicit message ("For your safety, wear a helmet whenever on a bicycle")

This provokes the following thought process, which is certainly true at some degree of possibility:
("If I cycle, a car might hit me / I'll crash and bang my head into something, and I'll die)

In my opinion, these two things get combined ->
Implicit message ("You've got to wear a helmet whenever you cycle or you might die")

No wonder then that the majority of adults in Australia think cycling is something only crazy, risk-taking people do?

And, what about the cyclist risk compensation that arises from the inverse?
Subconscious thought? "I wear a helmet, so I won't die"

True or Not?

Personal line:
As an Aussie, I'm very used to wearing a crash helmet while riding - and I would never go mountain biking (too many trees and rocks), riding in a peleton (too much chance of a touch of wheels) or any fast riding in the city (to many cross streets, iPodestrians and mobile-texting cagers) without wearing a crash helmet.

But I recently spent a few months in London, and I found it a real pleasure to be able to *choose* not to wear a crash helmet while riding sedately 500m and back to the local shops for my groceries, or while tootling along a shared path. I wonder whether if a tree branch had fallen on my head and killed me, whether some of the pro-helmet crowd would say it was what I deserved for not wearing a helmet...

Cunobelin

rally200 wrote:

As someone says above wear a lid & theres a chance it might save you - why not take that chance.

Why should pedatrians or others take that chance?

rally200

Cunobelin wrote:

rally200 wrote:

As someone says above wear a lid & theres a chance it might save you - why not take that chance.

Why should pedatrians or others take that chance?

If they want to. I don't think anyone should be compelled. but we might as well as

1. we all love spending cash on cycling kit
2. we already look wierd mincing about in lycra
3. surely you're not really arguing that you (as in you personally) are just as likely to bang your head when walking at 3-4 mph as when riding? WHo are you Mr Blobby or Frank Spencer?

singlespeedexplosif

surely you're not really arguing that you (as in you personally) are just as likely to bang your head when walking at 3-4 mph as when riding


hmm. So far this year, I've not banged my head at all whilst riding. Over 9,500km to date. But I did once whilst walking. Probably around 1000km to date. So I guess I need to wear a helmet whilst walking. Oooh Betty, etc.

Eau Rouge

jeffhope wrote:

No wonder then that the majority of adults in Australia think cycling is something only crazy, risk-taking people do?

And, what about the cyclist risk compensation that arises from the inverse?
Subconscious thought? "I wear a helmet, so I won't die"

True or Not?

I've got to go with "not true" here. From my experience the view that cycling is a crazy risky thing is pretty prevalent all on it's own, and not really anything to do with helmet campaigns.
Cycling does carry some danger. Cyclists die. Pretending it doesn't is futile and basically a lie. Not having helmet campaigns because it might make people think cycling has some danger in it just strikes me as a big fat dangerous lie. Now, a campaign that pointed out that, while dangerous, cycling was safer than driving (a casual glance at road deaths will show that) would be great.

Likewise, I can't imagine too many cyclists having enough faith in their helmet to take risks because of it. Maybe if they were to use those solid horseriding ones, but not cycling helmets. If anything, I would have thought the "I'm too good a cyclist or too cool to wear a hemlet" crowd would be the more likely to take risks based on helmet wearing?

roadrider84

I think this is a quite a simple answer. Those who don't wear helmets do so as their own risk. The warnings about not wearing helmets are there for everyone to see. Whether someone decides not to wear a helmet is entirely their choice. I personally do wear a helmet as it minimises the risk of me suffering injury to my brain were I to fall off etc etc.