Helmet debate continues

shouldbeinbed

Bacteria Man wrote:

Naively, I wasn't expecting people's views on this subject to be so strong.

welcome to the world

other topics you might like to try on various bits of the board include:

Headphones when cycling are stupid and dangerous, discuss.

We shouldn't be allowed on the roads without paying Road Tax.

Hybrids are better than road bikes.

Lance Armstrong is a drug addled abomination to cycling. OR Lance Armstrong is a human dynamo who wouldn't be stupid enough to take drugs after what he's been through.

and to the MTB section: why do you ride those big lumpy things in forests when you could be having so much more fun on a road bike and tarmac.


you'll find you start some really well responded to popular threads

fnegroni

I would like to ask all of those who wear helmets if they replace theirs whenever their helmets gets a knock or after *every* instance in which they fall, as per manufacturers instructions.
I would also like to ask those if they carry two helmets just in case that after a fall the first one becomes useless.

The only reason these debates are endless is because the argument becomes whether helmets are effective or not, rather than weather they should be compuslory.

Since the only reason to be made compulsory is to reduce cost to NHS and reduce damage to a second party in case of accidents, neither of which really makes any sense, I suspect the argument could be closed by saying that helmets can be useful, but should not be compulsory due to their cost/benefit ratio not meeting the target.
End of...

rjsterry

fnegroni wrote:

End of...

Fat chance

bails87

shouldbeinbed wrote:

and to the MTB section: why do you ride those big lumpy things in forests when you could be having so much more fun on a road bike and tarmac.

Because then we'd end up like you lot :twisted:

t0pc4t

supersonic wrote:

I recommend, as I will state for the third or fourth time in this thread, that people make their own risk assessments, for the reasons I have laid out before.

absolutely spot on.

I wear one incidentally but that's my choice alone

sc999cs

[stir] So what's the views on gloves / no gloves [/stir] :twisted:

edjo

wow...this again...surely it's personal choice!

My choice, initially made by my better half insisting that I wear a helmet as she always had cycling as she comes from an MTB background. Me, never wore one as when I started on the road, the 'hairnets' were neither use nor ornament. However, I agreed on the basis that she bought it and do did.
Now I always ride with a helmet, but in the last few years, I've seen four destroyed - and I mean split or broken - on the road along with three very badly damaged on MTB trails. One road rider hit a sheep at ~60kmh descending in the Dales and had head trauma thst the neurosurgeon anticipated would have killed him if there was no helmet in place - he made a full recovery in around 6months. Commuting into Leeds one morning, I watched a rider ahead of me be 'clipped' by a car and fall with a loud crack as their head hit the kerb - helemt split but they got up with little issue. When I saw them next, they said they'd had a bruise alond the side of their head for four weeks, but nothing else other than a sore neck.

In spite of all of this, it's still an adult decision, but the cycling industry should encourage the wearing of helemts as one less tragedy / injury / family grief has to be be the way.

biondino

I'm going to resurrect the argument that meanwhile so enjoyed spluttering about back in the day. If someone's going to hit you on the head with a hammer, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Or, if that analogy is a bit of a stretch for some people, try this. Go out into the road and headbutt the tarmac as hard as you can. Perhaps take a running jump so you can enjoy that sliding/bouncing on your head effect. Now do the same wearing a helmet. Apply any findings therefrom to your personal headwear choice.

mcj78

Just came across this:



Guy was longboarding down a hill at ~30mph and fell off, doctors had to remove large sections of his skull to relieve the pressure buildup from the brain swelling - he wasn't wearing a helmet at the time, although is now apparently all for them. They replaced the bits of skull they cut out eventually, which was nice of them.

Struck me as a similar scenario that a cyclist could experience i.e. being catapulted head first onto the road at ~30mph. Of course a helmet isn't a magic force-field, nor will it save you if a bus runs over your head, but isn't this just the type of injury helmets are designed to protect against?

I don't have a problem with those who decide not to wear them & I certainly don't think they should be made compulsory, but would anyone deny they might make a difference in this sort of case?

j

shouldbeinbed

bails87 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

and to the MTB section: why do you ride those big lumpy things in forests when you could be having so much more fun on a road bike and tarmac.

Because then we'd end up like you lot :twisted:

hey, don't lump me in with the roadies I'm a lower form of life to all of you, I ride a big heavy urban bike (and occasionally a CX)

Fnegroni - do you take two bikes with you everywhere in case one gets nicked :?:

tarquin_foxglove

I had a quick check of the Specialized website, as far as I know the only major manufacturer to submit their helmets to the Snell foundation for testing, & beyond a name check there wasn't much reference to safety just the usual stuff about materials, weight & ventilation.

Do any helmet manufacturers make claims about their helmets' safety or do they all just say 'conforms to such & such a standard'?

White Horse

As usual in this debate 2 arguments are being discussed. The individual instances cannot be countered with the population argument.

For example, there are SOME circumstances where a helmet will reduce injury. There are SOME circumstances where a helmet will increase injury. These cannot be countered with the macro argument that wearing of helmets on a population level does not reduce injury. Stats exist that show that helmet wearing is not the biggest factor in reducing injuries. Number of cyclists and attitudes of other road users do this. In the US, for example a tiny proportion of journeys are made by bike, the vast majority of users wear helmets but injuries per million km are among the highest in the world. In the Netherlands, something like a third of all journeys are made by bike, only 0.1% of the population wears a helmet but because of facilities, numbers and attitude of other road users they have one of the lowest serious injury and death rates among cyclists.

So, there are 2 arguments. One on a macro, population level - they don't improve safety. The other on a micro, individual level - they might save you serious injury in certain circumstances, they might increase or cause an injury in others: take your pick.

The fact that on a population level there are no statistics to prove they are effective is not an argument against anyone wearing them. Conversely, the fact that some medical professionals can point to cases where individuals due to the circumstances they found themselves in could have been saved from their serious injuries does not provide a case for compulsion.

These two points are not opposite sides of the same argument. They are different arguments.

Maxticate

mcj78 wrote:

Just came across this:



j

I saw this and thought fake.

Then I went and looked it up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,599652,00.html

Pretty unreal.

saladfunky

Well I just think we have to be sensible, I don't think we should be forced to wear them but at the same time the helmet could prevent concussion or an embarousing golf ball bump on your head like I had when I came off on some gravel. I had to be observed for concussion and looked a pratt with this lump on my temple. I have worn a helmet ever since. If you slip on some grease on the road and smack your head on something I am sure a helmet will help. But as the evidence is sketchy it shouldn't be made compulsory.
Most important is to riide safe and expect the car to not see you.
:!:

wgwarburton

Hi,
One of the main reasons collecting data on helmets is difficult is that serious cycling accidents are rare events.

This is quite an important point, given that cycling is perceived as dangerous, when really, it isn't.

Cheers,
W.

feltkuota

I wonder what the claims procedure would be when someone comes off a Boris bike without wearing a helmet. I have to date not seen a single person wearing a helmet whist riding those. So, cyclist claims against insurer, insurer pays out less as no helmet then cyclists sues Boris for lack of helmets? Discuss

wgwarburton

feltkuota wrote:

I wonder what the claims procedure would be when someone comes off a Boris bike without wearing a helmet. I have to date not seen a single person wearing a helmet whist riding those. So, cyclist claims against insurer, insurer pays out less as no helmet then cyclists sues Boris for lack of helmets? Discuss

Imagine a BikeRadar helmet debate in a court of law with the participants being paid Barristers rates. Who would pay? Would a judge be prepared to give them the court time to argue?

This, incidentally, (helmets & bojobikes) was supposed to be the point of the R4 piece on helmets but it wasn't worth the time to listen to- the reporter just interviewed the infamous "cars drive closer" researcher and someone from th BHIT (a pro-helmet advocacy group). Neither offered any useful insight nor did the reporter offer any useful commentary.
Given that the programme that "hosted" the piece majors on use of numbers I had hoped for some sensible analysis and/or commentary on risks, statistics and the selective use of research... disappointing.

Cheers,
W.

Wallace1492

Maxticate wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

Just came across this:



j

I saw this and thought fake.

Then I went and looked it up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,599652,00.html

Pretty unreal.

The guy was not cycling. It is of no relevence.

blott9b

Had an interesting chat with an A&E consultant when I asked him why he did not wear a helmet he said
I looked into it and the main difference a helmet makes is whether you die or are a vegetable, of the two conditions I prefer the former so I don't wear a helmet.

DiabloJoe

There are lots of for and against arguments, but when i watch videos like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg

although its a bit extrema conditions, it does stop is head from bouncing off the concrete and getting scalped for real.

There was another video that i was trying to find of a crash at tDF of some guys head bouncing off the floor on one of the early stages when it rained, but cant

MrChuck

blott9b wrote:

Had an interesting chat with an A&E consultant when I asked him why he did not wear a helmet he said
I looked into it and the main difference a helmet makes is whether you die or are a vegetable, of the two conditions I prefer the former so I don't wear a helmet.

That's a ridiculous argument, whoever is making it.

hodsgod

It's absolutely clear a helmet can protect you, why do horse riders/motorcyclists/construction workers etc all wear them. Head, hard road, bang!!! How can it not help?

No point in trying to convince those that choose not to recognise the obvious, after all there are some people that still believe the earth was made in 6 days!

_Brun_

hodsgod wrote:

It's absolutely clear a helmet can protect you, why do horse riders/motorcyclists/construction workers etc all wear them. Head, hard road, bang!!! How can it not help?

No point in trying to convince those that choose not to recognise the obvious, after all there are some people that still believe the earth was made in 6 days!

Have you considered that riding a horse, a motorcycle or working on a construction site might be more dangerous than riding a bicycle? In the first instance it's at least a maybe, and the latter two, certainly.

Would wearing a helmet not be likely to help drivers escape head injuries in the event of a car crash? Is this something you'd like to see encouraged?

Oddjob62

I'm sure had the Internet been around in the early 80s (at least in the form we know it) there would have been similar arguments about seatbelts in all the motor forums.

MrChuck

hodsgod wrote:

It's absolutely clear a helmet can protect you, why do horse riders/motorcyclists/construction workers etc all wear them. Head, hard road, bang!!! How can it not help?

No point in trying to convince those that choose not to recognise the obvious, after all there are some people that still believe the earth was made in 6 days!

It's not just about whether it helps or not, it's also about how likley it is that you'll need it, and you already agree with this unless you wear your helmet at all times, including off the bike- after all, you might trip, right? Construction sites are dangerous places- it's not yet been shown AFAIK that riding a bike is as dangerous, or at least more dangerous than lots of other activities for which people don't wear helmets and don't get lambasted for it.

mcj78

Wallace1492 wrote:

The guy was not cycling. It is of no relevence.

Wow, that's me told...

Yes, I know he wasn't cycling - I stated that in my post. My point was, that falling headfirst from a longboard onto the road at 30mph might present similar injuries as going headfirst off a bike onto the road at 30mph if, for example, a car pulled out of a sidestreet on you & you had no chance to brake. I used this poor guy as an example of the type of injuries people can sustain in using their head as a means of bringing themselves to a halt from 30mph. To say it's of no relevance because he fell off a skateboard instead of a bike seems ever so slightly pedantic, the starting point of your head would be similar in both cases, the speed would be similar, trajectory would be similar, the end point would be similar, but it's obviously of no relevance whatsoever as the guy fell from a plank of wood on wheels as opposed to a few metal tubes on wheels...

Anyway, helmets.

If I fell off either at 20-30mph, i'd rather be wearing a helmet in any case. Doesn't mean others should be forced to, or that anyone shoud in turn try to make them feel irresponsible if they choose not to wear one, personal choice I think they call it, que sera sera.

blu3cat

Oddjob62 wrote:

I'm sure had the Internet been around in the early 80s (at least in the form we know it) there would have been similar arguments about seatbelts in all the motor forums.

And in the early 1900s about removing the person with the red flag from the front of a motor vehicle

wgwarburton

Oddjob62 wrote:

I'm sure had the Internet been around in the early 80s (at least in the form we know it) there would have been similar arguments about seatbelts in all the motor forums.

Perhaps so, however it's reasonably clear from the evidence that wearing a seatbelt protects drivers in the event of an accident and significantly reduces the number of drivers Killed or Seriously Injured.
That clarity simply does not exist for cycle helmets. The evidence doesn't show a significant reduction in KSIs. Worryingly, however, the number of minor injuries does go down, which may suggest that the number of more serious injuries actually goes up.
The "rotational injury" theory has been mooted as a possible mechanism, as has the increase in effective size of your head, and the extra weight attached to it.

Fortunately, cycling is safe enough that the evidence is very thin... though that does makes it difficult to draw conclusions.
Less fortunately, that doesn't seem to stop people advocating their use.... and as a side effect increasing the perception that cycling is actually sufficiently more dangerous than other day-to-day activities to warrant special protection.

It would all be a bit more sensible to promote helmets as being a handy way to reduce the risk of cuts & grazes (like gloves, for instance). They arn't designed or tested to a higher level of protection, and, as above, there's an unprovably small but finite risk that they may increase the chances of an injury, perhaps a more serious one, in some circumstances.

Cheers,
W.

unclemalc

It's a 'choice' thing for anyone but having been taken out by cars twice I personally know that, had I not been wearing a helmet, I would have had far more worrying/serious injuries than those I actually sustained from bouncing along a rough tarmac road at 20mph.

I know a few riders who do not wear a lid and when I have asked if they'd ever had an accident, the answer was 'No'.
My concern with the purely 'it's a personal choice' argument is that it necessitates for many riders the after-effects of such an accident to prove that at some stage during a crash/accident/unexpected dismount, your head WILL hit the deck at some point during the event - and a helmet will take most of the impact away from skin and bone.

wgwarburton

unclemalc wrote:

It's a 'choice' thing for anyone but having been taken out by cars twice I personally know that, had I not been wearing a helmet, I would have had far more worrying/serious injuries than those I actually sustained from bouncing along a rough tarmac road at 20mph.

Perhaps. That's faith, rather than evidence, though.

I know a few riders who do not wear a lid and when I have asked if they'd ever had an accident, the answer was 'No'.

So, everyone who's had an accident knows that a helmet is worthwhile? I don't think so...

My concern with the purely 'it's a personal choice' argument is that it necessitates for many riders the after-effects of such an accident to prove that at some stage during a crash/accident/unexpected dismount, your head WILL hit the deck at some point during the event - and a helmet will take most of the impact away from skin and bone.

You're clearly in possession of better information than I've seen, and it looks as though you'd like to be able to protect us all from our foolishness, despite your opening comments about personal choice.

Cheers,
W.