Helmet or no helmet?

doyler78

rb1956 wrote:

marusches wrote:

saw on a government website in uk the reason helmets are not law in uk is that it would be an admission that cycling is dangerous, hence families might be tempted to find other hobbies with thier kids..

Cycling has dangers, but so does abandoning cycling in favour of sitting on the sofa watching TV, and riding round everywhere in cars, busses etc.

I hesitate to approve of anything done by the British government, but maybe it understands that there are trade-offs in public health policy. I hope I don't need to persuade anyone on this forum of the social and health benefits of cycling, and you don't encourage people to participate in any activity by screaming "It's dangerous! It's dangerous! If you don't wear a helmet you will die!". The introduction of helmet laws in NSW produced a sharp reduction in the amount of cycling, and I have little doubt that the same effect would be observed in the UK.

I think that there is a very real danger as well by screaming constantly that cycling is dangerous without a helmet what you do if the law is ever passed is to give inexperienced or new cyclists an unrealistic expectation that they are significantly more safe. As if the very limited circumstances in which a helmet is actually of any use is actually misinterpreted to read that they are now safe full stop. That would be a seriously silly message to give out however when lobbying groups make such simplistic statements then it really isn't surprising that simplistic views of safety then become the norm amongst less experienced riders.

rally200

If we wind right back to the OP - his question was would we recommend that he, an individual, whoo intend to ride a lot of mile, fast, on the road , get a helmet. Why is everyone ranting about compulsion?

I'd recommend the helmet for the OP - but never compulsion for anyone. I doubt any other contributor would.

neeb

I've just spent the best part of an hour trying to find some very basic data about how much force bicycle helmets actually absorb (theoretically at least) , what the expected forces to the head might be in impacts at different speeds, and what effects different forces applied to the head might have in terms of injury. It's amazing how difficult this information is to find!

The third question was the easiest to get some sort of answer to - it seems that 300g (g-force, not grams) deceleration applied to the average head will cause significant but probably non-permanent injury, and 400g is likely to cause permanent injury. Consequently, it seems that all of the tests (snell and the others) are designed so that a helmet is dropped from a certain specified height with a dummy head of a certain specified weight inside it, and the deceleration experienced by the dummy has to be less than 300g for the helmet to pass the test. What isn't explained anywhere (or at least I couldn't find it) is what the expected deceleration would be of a real head without a helmet which was subjected to those forces (and thus what percentage of the force deriving from the deceleration the helmet is absorbing) and what those forces represent in terms of what might be experienced in different types of bicycle accident.

It's a bit weird that this information isn't readily available, or if it is, collated so that it is easy to access. I also found the whole ethos of the snell website distinctly propagandist, which is a little disturbing for a standards institute. There is one page where the intention is to explain why helmets are useful and necessary that simply provides a list of data about how dangerous cycling supposedly is - no information at all about how a helmet might actually mitigate this risk! Also the whole site looks like it was designed in 1995 in MSDOS or something and has been updated rather infrequently since then, which doesn't inspire confidence...

Don't get me wrong, I think helmets probably do offer significant protection in many of the sorts of accidents cyclists are likely to be involved in, it would just be reassuring if the many companies and organisations with a vested interest in demonstrating this did so more convincingly!!

I'd recommend the helmet for the OP - but never compulsion for anyone. I doubt any other contributor would.

I'll agree with that!

deal

i crashed recently - hit my head on a dry stone wall, helmet showed surprisingly little damage but im pretty sure i would have suffered atleast some nasty soft tissue damage.

I have a history of crashing into walls, also crashed when i was a kid about 15 years ago without helmet and ended up needing surgery, the skin had been peeled away from my forehead :shock: which left me some pretty nice scarring.

Cunobelin

One of the best websites is US based, but entirely relevant. It discusses and compares standards, lists helmets, recalls, rotational injuries, snag points, pitfalls, pros and cons helmets for big heads, helmets for small heads, materials, how helmets work, why vents are bad for design, how they are manafacured, how they should fit, how to fasten and as much information as you will ever need

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute

Grimone

redddraggon wrote:

visual-hybrid wrote:

if you don't wear a helmet, you obviously aren't riding fast.

I bet these guys rode fast.......

Ha Ha!

Burn!

So juvenile, aren't i!

fat slow bloke

I came off on a patch of ice doing about 20mph 2 weeks ago.
Didn't think anything of it, just slid along the road, got back up and carried on (a bit more carefully).
However when I got home I noticed a long scratch along the top of my helmet. I wasn't even aware that my head had hit the ground.
Nuff said I think.

cougie

marusches wrote:

plain and simply if i didnt wear a helmet i would have died or severly brain damaged after an accident in sept resulting in helmet cracking in 2

Your helmet is meant to do that. You cant tell us for sure how much brain damage (if any) you would have got without one. Nobody can.


IF helmets are so essential - then where are the missing generations of kids who rode round the streets on their Choppers, Grifters and Burners when helmets were not around ? Is there some mass burial ground for them all ? :?:

prawny

Cougie, that's not a great argument, by that reasoning there would be no one left alive who ever drove a Rover Metro!!

I wear a helmet cause it makes me look cool :? , I've only just started though never wore one in the past but I've been lucky. I doubt it would save my life but it would stop me rubbin my head skin off on the A34, which is always a bonus!

Border Cyclist

fat slow bloke wrote:

I came off on a patch of ice doing about 20mph 2 weeks ago.
Didn't think anything of it, just slid along the road, got back up and carried on (a bit more carefully).
However when I got home I noticed a long scratch along the top of my helmet. I wasn't even aware that my head had hit the ground.
Nuff said I think.

I did pretty much similar last Wednesday morning. I've now washed the considerable blood off the bike (I didn't know that fingers held so much blood :shock: ). I still can't sleep on my right side because of the skin missing from my hip, forearm and shoulder.

It was therefore quite a few days later when I noticed the scratch down my helmet, which to me suggests that my head would have looked the same without the protection

cougie

I dont get the metro comparison ? I survived my metro too !
Helmets will help in most crashes - but they arent the lifesavers that they are made out to be. Cycling isnt that dangerous.

The Jack

First post, serius topic: I can´t believe we are still having this conversation. Every cyclist should know the obvious benefits of using a helmet by now. And if you are older than, say, 15, I really hope you don´t imagine that cycling without a helmet makes you look cooler in some strange way.
Also Cycling+ needs to stop hiding behind the "it´s legal"-argument. No, use of helmet isn´t mandatory, but your magazine is setting a example for many young riders, so put the lid on the cyclists in your pictures, please.

mozwyn69

I've looked after patients in ICU following head injuries. There is nothing cool looking about being fed through a tube and having someone wipe your sh*t up.
I see very few 'serious' cyclists these days who don't wear a lid, I think its just part of the kit.

Cunobelin

mozwyn69 wrote:

I've looked after patients in ICU following head injuries. There is nothing cool looking about being fed through a tube and having someone wipe your sh*t up..

I assume therefore that you are familiar with the concept of "evidence based practice" - there has been a lot of criticism of the medical profession that they fail to implement this. Emotive statements like this given a thin veneer of credibility because "I'm a professional" give no credit medical to the profession or to the debate...... it is misleading and extremely unprofessional.

Please clarify for us that the patients who "were being fed through a tube and having someone wipe their sh*t up" were all cyclists and that you have not had the same circumstances with other patients. (I would find it interesting if your professional experience was in direct contravention of all the published and peer reviewed evidence.)


I would also like to ask if you have the same "professional" attitude to all preventable head injuries - and would criticise all these groups in the same way?

Or is your scaremongering only applicable to cyclists and "being fed through a tube and having someone wipe your sh*t up" somehow an acceptable condition for pedestrians?



.

mozwyn69

And you know what my experiences are do you?, The patients I looked after, what their injuries were or how they occured?I worked in Neurology for over 8 yrs and how dare you say I am extremely unprofessional.

milton50

Let's be honest a discussion like this is not going to illuminate someone more than what their common sense should already be telling them. You'll get personal recollections on one hand claiming that without a helmet they would have been seriously injured, and on the other the opposing view that if you come off a bike you're going to be injured no matter what.

It really isn't an arduous decision to either put a helmet on or leave it off. You should be able to make that decision without having to listen to endless claim and counter-claim.

I personally don't wear a helmet unless it is stated as compulsory for a certain event. Just decide whether you like wearing a helmet or not and get on with it.

forty four

if your head hits cement at a high enough velocity your brain will be damaged it doesnt matter if your pro or think your cool. with a helmet the impact has to be greater to cause the same amount of damage this concept is very simple. if the impact is severe enough your dead either way. at bicycle speeds a helmet can save your life. if someone does not want to where a helmet that is there foolish decision. i did not where them in the past. get a couple concussions like me and youll probably change your mind if you have good sense.

swagman

Lets have seat belts on bikes, yeah!!

george.b

life or fashion?

ill take life thankyou

wear a helmet!

softlad

peer pressure or freedom of choice..??

I'll take freedom of choice, thankyou.

Wear one - don't wear one - but be comfortable with your choice and enjoy your riding.

marusches

How do you know that? You've got no evidence to show that the grave things would have happened if you weren't wearing a helmet.quote]


well i would presume whatever damage my helmet recieved while headbutting the floor at 20mph (also bad neck for 2 weeks) would have been my head in the abscence of said helmet.

then again you may be right.but i will let you take the chances ,not me

Cunobelin

mozwyn69 wrote:

And you know what my experiences are do you?, The patients I looked after, what their injuries were or how they occured?I worked in Neurology for over 8 yrs and how dare you say I am extremely unprofessional.

That will be some 20 odd years less experience than me then. You chose to state that

I've looked after patients in ICU following head injuries. There is nothing cool looking about being fed through a tube and having someone wipe your sh*t up..

You chose to make such an emotive statement as a health care professional and failed to treat it as a general statement, implying that it applies to cyclists specifically or as a greater frequency.

You need to calrify such a claim up. IF cyclists are the greater number of these type of patients then it is certainly different from my experience.and that of the majority of cohort or statistically based studies into head injuries. -so lets pick up the points.

Multiple studies in the BMJ, (Thornhill (2000), Wardlaw (2000), for example), also the NICE guidelines all show that cyclists are not the main victims of head injury.....falls are far more frequent, and alcohol is the most frequent factor. Yet somehow you are suggesting this is not the case - your unit appears to be unique with only cyclists suffering from these injuries.

Please clarify for us that the patients who "were being fed through a tube and having someone wipe their sh*t up" were all cyclists and that you have not had the same circumstances with other patients.

Is this the case - please enlighten us that this is actually your experience - do cyclists form the majority of your patients or not?

I would also like to ask if you have the same "professional" attitude to all preventable head injuries - and would criticise all these groups in the same way?

Would you act with the same attitude towards a pedestrian or driver with a head injury or not?

Or is your scaremongering only applicable to cyclists and "being fed through a tube and having someone wipe your sh*t up" somehow an acceptable condition for pedestrians?

Is a preventable pedestrian injury more "acceptable" or should we be applying the same preventative measures.


I look forward to your reply....

Dog Breath

Yes, it's not the law and freedom of choice prevails. But I have not read one single convincing reason for not wearing a helmet.

There are so many spurious arguements put forward.... yes if a truck hits me at 50mph then I'm going to die whether I'm wearing a helmet or not. This really isn't a reason for not wearing one.

The reason I wear one is to limit the damage that may be done to my head if I fall off (hit a pot hole, taking avoiding action for whatever reason etc) and in so doing hitting my head on road/pavement/kerb/wall etc.

Even a slow speed direct impact on your head can cause serious injury. With a helmet you are more likely to limit that damage. I've had a few spills on my mountain bike, and while not hitting my head, the thought of doing so without a helment just doesn't bear thinking about.

DB

Cunobelin

Yes, it's not the law and freedom of choice prevails. But I have not read one single convincing reason for pedestriansnot wearing a helmet.

There are so many spurious arguements put forward.... yes if a truck hits me at 50mph then I'm going to die whether I'm wearing a helmet or not. This really isn't a reason for not wearing one.

The reason I wear one is to limit the damage that may be done to my head if I fall and in so doing hitting my head on road/pavement/kerb/wall etc.

Even a slow speed direct impact on your head can cause serious injury. With a helmet you are more likely to limit that damage.

Dog Breath

But I have not read one single convincing reason for pedestriansnot wearing a helmet.

It is completely irrelevant and spurious whether pedestrians, snooker players, line dancers or anyone else should or should not wear a helmet. The fact is that you are less likely to incur a serious cycling related head injury if you wear a helmet.

Ask yourselves, if you landed on your head at 10mph without a helmet, how much more damge would there be than if you had worn one.

There is NO arguement against this.

But, as I said, it's personal choice and if riders are willing to take that risk, then fine. I'm not willing to take the risk, so I always wear a helmet.

DB

Cunobelin

It is completely irrelevant and spurious whether pedestrians, snooker players, line dancers or anyone else should or should not wear a helmet. The fact is that you are less likely to incur a serious cycling related head injury if you wear a helmet.

Not irrelevant - it is inconvenient and easier to dismiss than discuss!

So none of these groups are less likely to suffer a head injury if they wear a helmet?

Surely you are not claiming this to be the case - after all "the fact is that you are less likely to incur a serious line dancing related head injury if you are wearing a helmet"....................If this is not he case and the helmet doesn't work for a line dancer falling over - how can they work for a cyclist?

Ask yourselves, if you landed on your head at 10mph without a helmet, how much more damage would there be than if you had worn one.

Which is exactly the type of injuries that would be incurred by pedestrians, line dancers and snooker players.... aare we saying again that the helmet wouldn't work for a line dancer?


There is NO argument against these people wearing helmets..

Dog Breath

Completely spurious and idiotic reasoning.

Oh well, natural selection will have its day...

Elganesh

I wear a helmet for three reasons.

The first being self preservation. If I do come off my bike, I have less of a chance of injuring my head. So far, so good.

Secondly, my girlfriend's kids wear helmets because they are new to cycling and still fall off every now and then. I couldn't come up with a logical reason for me not wearing one while they are, even though I've been cycling for 30 years longer than they have, and so I wear one even when not with them.

Thirdly, I am riding on public roads and deem it my responsibility to ensure my safety and the safety of those around me. This includes wearing some safety equipment as I'm not encased in a moving Faraday cage. If your off on your own, on private land etc then do what you want, but on public roads wear some protection.

benvickery

I don't understand why everyone gets so angry about this???

I have a wife and 4 children, if I can't work because of an accident and lose my salary then my family's life is ruined. I like cycling and by cycling on busy roads I am taking a risk, by wearing a helmet I am reducing the risk, by how much is insignificant.

If you are willing to take the risk and ride without a helmet then go for it. Before I had a family I never wore a helmet either but things change.

Cunobelin

benvickery wrote:

I don't understand why everyone gets so angry about this???

I have a wife and 4 children, if I can't work because of an accident and lose my salary then my family's life is ruined. I like cycling and by cycling on busy roads I am taking a risk, by wearing a helmet I am reducing the risk, by how much is insignificant.

If you are willing to take the risk and ride without a helmet then go for it. Before I had a family I never wore a helmet either but things change.

The reason people get "angry" is the sheer hypocrisy.

Let me give you an example....

Dog Breath wrote:

Completely spurious and idiotic reasoning.

Oh well, natural selection will have its day...

Arguing the fact fact that head injuries can be alleviated by the use of a helmet is completely spurious and idiotic ................................................unless it fits the personal agenda when it becomes idiotic not to argue the same case?

Hardly logical reasoning - either helmets prevent head injuries or not!



Then we have a "Health care professional" who gives emotive statements implying that if you don't wear a helmet you will require your family to "clean up your sh*t" - yet when asked about how many cyclists this actually affects - declines to comment!

Could it be the fact that (inconveniently) the published studies are correct and cyclists are a minority?



We should be looking at evidence, and allowing an informed choice. One must question the agenda of those who resort bullying and emotional blackmail and then simply dismiss anything that does not fit. This forms no part of a serious discussion.


If we are serious about head injury reduction then we should be looking at other groups and learning the lessons that they can give us.