Helmet debate continues

sc999cs

unclemalc wrote:

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'.

I'm interested to know how many cyclists have had accidents and come off their cycles as a proportion of actual rides made. In the last five years of cycling almost daily I have come off once in the snow. I was wearing a helmet, as it happened, because I used my judgement of the out door conditions. My head didn't make contact with the ground. That is one fall in three thousand plus odd rides. Not a particularly high risk activity by the looks of it.

unclemalc wrote:

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.

So you would rather drive people away from cycling by mandating helmets into cars? If you force helmet wearing then those who don't want to wear helmets will stop cycling. How are they going to get around then? How do you also explain countries like the Netherlands where vast numbers of people cycle without a helmet to be seen.

If you get hit by a car travelling at 50mph, crushed under a left hand turning lorry, etc, a helmet will not save you.

The pro-helmet brigade seem to use lots of spurious arguments (just like the anti-helmet brigade), we've even had a poster aimed at motorcyclists in Asia posted in the general chat area of the forum to 'convince' that helmets are necessary. If riders want to wear helmets while taking part in a safe activity then let them. If they don't want to wear a helmet that is their choice. It is up to riders to decide how likely they are to come off based on distance, road conditions, and their own perceived skill level if they are going to wear a helmet.

It is all personal choice.

unclemalc

Perhaps. That's faith, rather than evidence, though.
No - the damage sustained by my helmet due to the imapct onto the tarmac was where my temple would have been.... :shock:

So, everyone who's had an accident knows that a helmet is worthwhile? I don't think so...
I don't know - what I said was merely a personal observation.

I was wearing a helmet, as it happened, because I used my judgement of the out door conditions.
This suggests you admit that the helmet might have been useful IF your head had hit the deck....
It only takes one time....even in 3000-odd rides.

If you force helmet wearing then those who don't want to wear helmets will stop cycling.
Maybe, maybe not. When I was a kid and biked everywhere helmets were non-existent. By the time I returned to bikes things were so different on the roads that I automatically wore one because it seemed likely that in any given accident in which I had no control, it might offer some protection from head injury. In MY case, that was proven - twice. The fearlessness of youth had been replaced by the cynicism of an older man.
On one particular up-until-then pleasant Sunday ride I was left-hooked by a gentleman about 500m from the end of my trip. Of the 3 possible choices I had (go right into oncoming traffic; go left under his rear wheel or my fave: go bodily into his hatch/boot with my shoulder) I actually trusted FROM EXPERIENCE that the helmet would prevent my head hitting anything glass or metal and I would sustain minimum damage. (I admit the helmet did not prevent me from sustaining a twisted hip from being locked into the bike...)

...you'd like to be able to protect us all from our foolishness, despite your opening comments about personal choice
I admit it - I'd like to prevent ANY cyclist getting head injuries as a result of ANY accident: guilty as charged.
I have no access to stats, I have never cycled in Holland (where I AM TOLD attitudes to cycling are so different that the sort of daily accidents reported in this country are much reduced) and I have not researched actively in A&E depts around the UK to poll damaged cyclists about the circumstances of their injuries and if by wearing a helmet things might have been different.

If you get hit by a car travelling at 50mph, crushed under a left hand turning lorry, etc, a helmet will not save you.
Agreed. A helmet did not save a friend from having his head crushed by a lorry being steered into the gutter by its dozing driver some years ago. But he always wore a helmet 'just in case'. He didn't assume he would die in that way. Neither do I. I DO assume that on any ride I MIGHT be taken out in such a way that my head could bounce off the road and so I ride 'defensively' to try to avoid 'accidents' but, if one is unavoidable, I trust the helmet to give me chance of reducing injury to the bit of me I like the most.

It is a personal choice: except in my household - my family members don't leave the house on two wheels without a helmet...

sc999cs

unclemalc wrote:

I was wearing a helmet, as it happened, because I used my judgement of the out door conditions.
This suggests you admit that the helmet might have been useful IF your head had hit the deck....
It only takes one time....even in 3000-odd rides.

I'm not anti-helmet, I'm anti-compulsion. Not the same thing. Some in the anti-helmet brigade would stop every one wearing helmets, seeing it as creeping legislation, which is just as unacceptable in my opinion.

As a cyclist I understand the limitations of helmets, when they will be helpful and when they won't. Helmets are a piece of equipment like clip less pedals or gloves used in a generally safe activity. When non-cyclists are told though that helmets are a necessity they perceive cycling as far more dangerous than it actually is, this stops them getting on their bike - a loss for them and to cycling in general.

unclemalc wrote:

It is a personal choice: except in my household - my family members don't leave the house on two wheels without a helmet...

I'm just curious, if a member of your family (assuming that it includes school aged children) refuses to wear their helmet would you actually ban them from cycling despite the obvious health benefit? If they left home on a ride with the helmet on, took it off a mile down the road, slinging it on the handlebars (as lots of school age riders do), and then had an accident would you tell them "told you so!"?

By actually condemning those cyclists who decide not to wear helmets as irresponsible and criticising their choice it shows a lack of respect towards those riders. I'd consider it disrespectful to criticise riders who do wear helmets for the same reasons. Helmets, like gloves, lycra, sun glasses are a personal choice. I never ask anyone why they do or don't wear helmets, it's none of my business or anyone else's.

White Horse

unclemalc wrote:

I have no access to stats, I have never cycled in Holland (where I AM TOLD attitudes to cycling are so different that the sort of daily accidents reported in this country are much reduced) and I have not researched actively in A&E depts around the UK to poll damaged cyclists about the circumstances of their injuries and if by wearing a helmet things might have been different.

I really don't want to get in to this argument as I thought everyone has read or heard the same points over and over again, but maybe you haven't. I have made your bit in brackets bold for emphasis. What you're saying is that other road users' incompetence makes bike riding dangerous to the point where a helmet is required and your solution is to protect/inconvenience the victim rather than change the behaviour of the cause of the problem? That's like saying everyone should wear stab vests because knife crime is up rather than focussing on methods to prevent people carrying out knife crime.

As to the rest of the bit I have quoted, research has been done in the effectiveness of helmets at a population level and no-one can prove that overall, helmets are effective in reducing the number of cycling casualties.

wgwarburton

unclemalc wrote:

Perhaps. That's faith, rather than evidence, though.
No - the damage sustained by my helmet due to the imapct onto the tarmac was where my temple would have been.... :shock:

...and you know for a fact that your head would have suffered the same damage if you hadn't been wearing a helmet, despite being an inch or two smaller and several hundred grammes lighter.

It is a personal choice: except in my household - my family members don't leave the house on two wheels without a helmet...

Why the prejudice against cycling? Should they not wear helmets when travelling in a car? Walking? How about ice-skating? Skiing? Sailing?

Perhaps they do, and your two wheels comment is superfluous.

Cheers,
W.

SlowingDown

Haven't read the whole thread so I'm sure it's already been said but there is no debate, it's personal choice...as it is with all the other activities mentioned (walking, skating, skiing...).

Didn't used to wear a lid as I 'knew' I'd always see danger coming and react. Then I saw my GF (now wife) trashed by a range rover (incidentally, helmet would have made no difference to her injuries) in circumstances I realised I wouldn't have been able to control and I've worn one ever since.

Of 4 significant crashes I've had in the 12 years since I don't like to think what sort of injuries I'd have got without the helmet in 2 of them. I don't really have a problem with wearing one, I've taken time to find one that is comfortable and I look like a kn*b anyway.

blott9b

If cycle helmets are in fact effective, then where helmet use increases or is made compulsory we would see a clear reduction in injuries, as was seen when seat belts became compulsory.

This would be used by the the pro-helmet lobby backed by the helmet manufactures to push for compulsion in most western countries.

The fact is no such reduction in injuries has been seen, in fact if anything there is a slight increase.

There is a distinct lack of push from the helmet manufacturers to fund research in this area as well (or they are but not releasing the findings).

For some reason cycle helmets are an emotional rather than rational issue for a lot of people.
Cycling is very low risk and people do lots of far riskier things with not a second thought to wearing any protective equipment, yet will consider cyclists reckless not to.

dennisn

blott9b wrote:

For some reason cycle helmets are an emotional rather than rational issue for a lot of people.
Cycling is very low risk and people do lots of far riskier things with not a second thought to wearing any protective equipment, yet will consider cyclists reckless not to.

Very well put. +1

tarquin_foxglove

unclemalc wrote:

... I was left-hooked by a gentleman about 500m from the end of my trip.
Of the 3 possible choices I had (go right into oncoming traffic; go left under his rear wheel or my fave: go bodily into his hatch/boot with my shoulder) I actually trusted FROM EXPERIENCE that the helmet would prevent my head hitting anything glass or metal and I would sustain minimum damage.

Is this evidence of the anti-helmet brigade's holy grail; that wearing a hemet leads to a false sense of security & then to increased risk taking?

d.n.f

Sounds like one for Mythbusters

rhann

From personal experience as someone who has dealt with a number of cycling injuries Helmets do make a big difference. the number of patients I have seen along side their helmet (which has been completly caved in) is beyond memory but if they werent wearing a helmet then there is a very good chance they wouldnt be here today. Helmets work, if you dont wear on then thats your choice, but dont blame anyone but yourself for your injuries.

wgwarburton

rhann wrote:

From personal experience as someone who has dealt with a number of cycling injuries Helmets do make a big difference. the number of patients I have seen along side their helmet (which has been completly caved in) is beyond memory but if they werent wearing a helmet then there is a very good chance they wouldnt be here today. Helmets work, if you dont wear on then thats your choice, but dont blame anyone but yourself for your injuries.

If helmets are so effective, why is there no solid evidence that they improve safety?

There seem to be an awful lot of smashed helmets around these days. How ever did we survive thus far?

Cheers,
W.

Buckled_Rims

Read snaffledog's account of his accident yesterday. The helmet saved his life.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12724358

_Brun_

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Read snaffledog's account of his accident yesterday. The helmet saved his life.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12724358

I read it. Then I read it again.

I couldn't see the bit where it says he would have been killed if it wasn't for the helmet. It does sound like he might have had a bit of a knock and a couple of scratches (which is what the helmet got), but I've never heard of either of those being particularly fatal.

Your sig is very apt, by the way.

tarquin_foxglove

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Read snaffledog's account of his accident yesterday. The helmet saved his life.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12724358

Thanks for the heads up, I'm off to buy one of theseto aid my safety in future.

SlowingDown

Makes me laugh that people really think that a lack of a push for compulsion by manufacturers and lobby groups indicates some sort of conspiracy to hide evidence that wearing a helmet doesn't improve your safety on a bike and/or might make you less safe. It is probably more to do with it being nigh on impossible to police a compulsion policy.

Wear one if you want, don't wear one if you don't want. Simple.

No, people don't have proof that they would have died or sustained a brain injury if they'd not been wearing a helmet in their crashes...but there is no proof that they wouldn't have either.

A month a go today my bike jack-knifed at about 35mph when I panicked as a car pulled a u-turn into my path at the bottom of a hill. I had no significant road rash as I didn't skid over the road, I just ploughed straight down into the tarmac, taking the impact on the upper right side of my head and then my shoulder. My helmet broke into three pieces,concussion for a week, dislocated my shoulder (never broken a bone in my life, they are made of stuff that frame manufacturers can only dream of), damaged my spine, and tore through most of the muscles in my shoulder, back and legs.

Without my helmet would I be dead? No idea, possibly, possibly not.
Without my helmet would I have a brain injury? No idea, possibly, possibly not.
Without my helmet would I have more serious head injuries? Yes, sorry, no 'proof', but yes.
Was I going 35mph cos I had a helmet on? No.
Did the driver pull across me because I had a helmet on? No.
Am I glad I had a helmet on? Yes.
Do I think you should wear a helmet? Not if you don't want to.

blott9b

I fell down the stairs when I was young and hit my head.
I would have had less severe injurys if I had been wearing a helmet.
I now wear my cycle helmet every time I go up or down stairs, it only takes one fall and next time I could die without it.
I am continually suprised by the recklessness of people who climb stairs without one.
I have even seen parents letting their children climb stairs without one, do they not know how many children end up in hospital from falling down stairs and hitting their heads?

I don't bother with wearing a helmet when I ride though as having fallen off at least 5 times in the last 30 years I have never hit my head. Riding a bike I am far less likely to hit my head than climbing stairs.

dennisn

blott9b wrote:

I fell down the stairs when I was young and hit my head.
I would have had less severe injurys if I had been wearing a helmet.
I now wear my cycle helmet every time I go up or down stairs, it only takes one fall and next time I could die without it.
I am continually suprised by the recklessness of people who climb stairs without one.
I have even seen parents letting their children climb stairs without one, do they not know how many children end up in hospital from falling down stairs and hitting their heads?

I don't bother with wearing a helmet when I ride though as having fallen off at least 5 times in the last 30 years I have never hit my head. Riding a bike I am far less likely to hit my head than climbing stairs.

SlowingDown

Riding a bike I am far less likely to hit my head than climbing stairs.

Not sure I follow the logic of that blott9b. And comparing walking (even up dangerous things like stairs) to cycling is ludicrous as you know. I'd be happy for you to use skateboarding, skating, skiing as a comparison but then I'd probably wear a helmet for those activities too. I'm happy to accept your point about where you draw the line on risk and potential contradictions with other activities but I just don't see the big deal in sticking a helmet on for cycling.

But like I say, I'm pro-choice, I just wont have someone imply helmet-wearers are foolish for deciding to put one on.

Peyote

SlowingDown wrote:

Was I going 35mph cos I had a helmet on? No.

Isn't the whole point about 'risk compensation theory' that you can't really assess yourself? Surely it requires an impartial observer to give an accurate opinion.

SlowingDown wrote:

Did the driver pull across me because I had a helmet on? No.

Same argument really. I doubt the driver would ever admit to it, but I don't think you can necessarily guarantee that he/she didn't risk it because you were wearing perceived PPE.

Of course I am assuming that you didn't collect the necessary data to make a judgement on the two points above!

Peyote

SlowingDown wrote:

But like I say, I'm pro-choice, I just wont have someone imply helmet-wearers are foolish for deciding to put one on.

The trouble is, some of them are. You won't find them here, or any cycle forum I'd imagine. But there does seem to be a significant number of people who do put a cycle helmet on and have been taken into the spin that it is the 'universal panacea'. They then end up taking foolish risks on the road, and off-road for that matter, thinking that because they're wearing a helmet, they'll be protected.

It's not true though, cycle helmets don't offer the kind of protection that most people seem to think they do.

blott9b

SlowingDown wrote:

Riding a bike I am far less likely to hit my head than climbing stairs.

Not sure I follow the logic of that blott9b. And comparing walking (even up dangerous things like stairs) to cycling is ludicrous as you know. I'd be happy for you to use skateboarding, skating, skiing as a comparison but then I'd probably wear a helmet for those activities too. I'm happy to accept your point about where you draw the line on risk and potential contradictions with other activities but I just don't see the big deal in sticking a helmet on for cycling.

But like I say, I'm pro-choice, I just wont have someone imply helmet-wearers are foolish for deciding to put one on.

Part of the problem is that risk is mostly a perception thing. From personal experience I have had twice as many injuries climbing stairs than I have cycling (and have probably spent a significantly greater time cycling). So is it really that ludicrus a comparison?

There is a lot of moral panic around cycle helmet use, the strangest/saddest I have seen was the parent advocating helmet compulsion because if she had made her son wear one he would have still been alive. He was not on his bike when the accident happened but standing next to it, he fell over and hit his head on the curb.

From what I have seen of the arguments, there is no hard evidence that wearing a cycle helmet will decrease the risk of a head injury, if anything it points to a slight increase. Until this explained I am very skeptical that the benefits out way the costs.
There are plenty of things that look sensible on the surface but there is something not obvious going on. If you put a bucket of hot water and one of cold in a freezer then the cold one will obviously freeze first (apparently not the hot one freezes first something to do with convection currents in the hot water) Oh and cycle paths .

Rides

I was taken out be a car in April, driver didn't see me and drove straight through the back of me. If I wasn't wearing a helmet on that ride I would have been dead / severe brain injury as the back of my head smashed his windscreen. The helmet took the full force of the impact.

For this reason alone I see there being NO argument on the subject. It saved my life!

White Horse

Rides wrote:

I was taken out be a car in April, driver didn't see me and drove straight through the back of me. If I wasn't wearing a helmet on that ride I would have been dead / severe brain injury as the back of my head smashed his windscreen. The helmet took the full force of the impact.

For this reason alone I see there being NO argument on the subject. It saved my life!

Glad you're OK, but there is an argument. The cause of your injuries was not related in any way to what you were wearing any more than it was to what colour the driver's hair was. The cause was at the very least careless driving, possibly dangerous. Why didn't the driver see another vehicle? In all likelihood because they were not paying attention through being distracted, being tired, having a cold, being on the phone or some other factor that I would bet was never investigated by the police. Hence SMIDSY is apparently an acceptable defence when a motorist collides with a cyclist. Try that defence when a car hits another car and you'll end up with a prosecution.

Possibly, in that individual circumstance a helmet reduced your injuries. But, there are no studies to suggest that helmets reduce injury at a population level and you will never see a helmet manufacturer or retailer using the safety/protection angle as a sales tool.. There are however, plenty of studies that prove that if people drove more carefully there would be less accidents and less deaths & serious inuries.

The widespread use of helmets masks the real issue. Helmets make cycling look dangerous whereas the danger lies in the poor habits and practices of other road users.

fnegroni

Rides wrote:

I was taken out be a car in April, driver didn't see me and drove straight through the back of me. If I wasn't wearing a helmet on that ride I would have been dead / severe brain injury as the back of my head smashed his windscreen. The helmet took the full force of the impact.

For this reason alone I see there being NO argument on the subject. It saved my life!

In a similar situation (although details are scarse), James Cracknell recently had a fractured skull at the back (point of first impact), but the brain injury was at the front, apparently the second impact to the ground.

He was wearing a helmet, apparently one of the safest on the market.

neiltb

the helmet debate will never end but I wear one after (and before) a friend of mine came off on a fire road at ~30mph and flew headlong into a breeze block sized rock. He broke 3 ribs was unconcious and lost his memory for 3 days.

Scared me into wearing mine whenever on the bike.

His helmet, well the 2/3 that were left looked OK.

Before that I fell of on some slippery cobbles, no helmet, no lasting damage but the whiplash meant I couldn't get out of bed. Helmet likely wouldn't have made the pain worse.

fnegroni

neiltb wrote:

the helmet debate will never end but I wear one after (and before) a friend of mine came off on a fire road at ~30mph and flew headlong into a breeze block sized rock. He broke 3 ribs was unconcious and lost his memory for 3 days.

An old lady going shopping is unlikely to ride like a bat out of hell on the cycle tracks near the shops.

She should not be made to wear a helmet.

When I ride to work and back I slow down on the downhill sections and my max speed is never above 25 mph. In congested traffic areas, I struggle to get above 15mph.

I don't do stunts and ride defensively.

I don't need to be made to wear a helmet.

neiltb

i never said you did when you take your trolley to the shops.

no ones making me but I do, as I said, this arguement will never end.

fnegroni

neiltb wrote:

i never said you did when you take your trolley to the shops.

no ones making me but I do, as I said, this arguement will never end.

That's because people argue whether helmets protect your head or not.

The argument should be about whether to make it compulsory or not, which is a lot easier to come to a conclusion about.

Peyote

fnegroni wrote:

The argument should be about whether to make it compulsory or not, which is a lot easier to come to a conclusion about.

True, and I think the huge majority of the cycling and non-cycling population would (after a sensible period of argument and debate) err on the side of non-compulsion.

It would be pretty bad news for these kind of forum threads if it did enter the national media though!