'Compulsory cycle helmets' - bbc.co.uk article

snailracer

gaz545 wrote:

I've always heard that the scull requires more force to break than a helmet. does know of any stats of this?

I know a brain requires much less force to break than a helmet, it's like a jelly.

The Rookie

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Personally I'm in favour of making helmets compulsary, in much the same way s seatbelts and motorbike helmets are, I see it as a sensible way to reduce a risk factor that is both proportional and not penal, but tht is just my view.

All the evidence suggests that helmet use reduces the risk of death or serious injury to cyclists involved in an accident, it will of course not remove all risk of injury, and in some cases it will not help at all, much like seatbelts, however as it does not appear to increase any risk (caveat that neck injury risk has been shown to be slightly increased when heavier helmets were the norm) then wearing them seems sensible.

Simon

Your logic being: it can't do any harm to make people wear them, so we should force them to wear them?

Run that piece of abdication of personal responsibility past me again?

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

greg66_tri_v2.0

snailracer wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

I've always heard that the scull requires more force to break than a helmet. does know of any stats of this?

I know a brain requires much less force to break than a helmet, it's like a jelly.

Blancmange, I am told (by my sis-in-law, who spent some time as a nurse in a serious head injuries unit). You get shearing of the brain on the wrong sort of impact. Like slices, only thicker.

Thicker. Geddit?

ndru

The Beginner wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Personally I'm in favour of making helmets compulsary, in much the same way s seatbelts and motorbike helmets are, I see it as a sensible way to reduce a risk factor that is both proportional and not penal, but tht is just my view.

All the evidence suggests that helmet use reduces the risk of death or serious injury to cyclists involved in an accident, it will of course not remove all risk of injury, and in some cases it will not help at all, much like seatbelts, however as it does not appear to increase any risk (caveat that neck injury risk has been shown to be slightly increased when heavier helmets were the norm) then wearing them seems sensible.

Simon

Your logic being: it can't do any harm to make people wear them, so we should force them to wear them?

Run that piece of abdication of personal responsibility past me again?

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

Yes, but please tell me how does a lack of helmet contribute to the event in the first place? Why is it that cars are not required to be equipped with pillows to reduce injuries? How is it that driving responsibly isn't social responsibility but protecting yourself is?

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Perversely, I think I'd stop wearing mine if such a law were introduced.

Me too.

I'm rarely in favour of the state stepping in to force me to do something which is solely for my own safety, rather than the protection of others. If I wish to ride without a helmet the only danger is to myself - what business is that of anyone else?

W1

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

jonginge

Greg66 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

I've always heard that the scull requires more force to break than a helmet. does know of any stats of this?

I know a brain requires much less force to break than a helmet, it's like a jelly.

Blancmange, I am told (by my sis-in-law, who spent some time as a nurse in a serious head injuries unit). You get shearing of the brain on the wrong sort of impact. Like slices, only thicker.

Thicker. Geddit?

Uh-oh. Some sort of rotation involved perhaps?


Oh, I tried that search. I think I may have broken the internets. Or something. Sorry.

greg66_tri_v2.0

JonGinge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

I've always heard that the scull requires more force to break than a helmet. does know of any stats of this?

I know a brain requires much less force to break than a helmet, it's like a jelly.

Blancmange, I am told (by my sis-in-law, who spent some time as a nurse in a serious head injuries unit). You get shearing of the brain on the wrong sort of impact. Like slices, only thicker.

Thicker. Geddit?

Uh-oh. Some sort of rotation involved perhaps?


Oh, I tried that search. I think I may have broken the internets. Or something. Sorry.

Don't be silly. As any fule knows, if you put a blancmange on a potter's wheel and ramp up the tempo, you get new wall coverings. But if you trip as you walk into the room, carrying your blancmange on a tray, you get sliced blancmange on the carpet and a happy cat.

So the lesson is clear. Don't ride on a potter's wheel, and don't ride between rooms in the house.

jonginge

Greg66 wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

I've always heard that the scull requires more force to break than a helmet. does know of any stats of this?

I know a brain requires much less force to break than a helmet, it's like a jelly.

Blancmange, I am told (by my sis-in-law, who spent some time as a nurse in a serious head injuries unit). You get shearing of the brain on the wrong sort of impact. Like slices, only thicker.

Thicker. Geddit?

Uh-oh. Some sort of rotation involved perhaps?


Oh, I tried that search. I think I may have broken the internets. Or something. Sorry.

Don't be silly. As any fule knows, if you put a blancmange on a potter's wheel and ramp up the tempo, you get new wall coverings. But if you trip as you walk into the room, carrying your blancmange on a tray, you get sliced blancmange on the carpet and a happy cat.

So the lesson is clear. Don't ride on a potter's wheel, and don't ride between rooms in the house.

^ My new mantra.

Should have realised it before, though: wooden floors are super slippy. I am a slow learner. And getting slower for unbeknowst reasons...

hatbeard

Greg66 wrote:

don't ride between rooms in the house.

NO! I will continue to not only ride from my living room to my kitchen but I'll also happily IGNORE the red light in the hallway whilst doing so...

I was the victim of a very upsetting incident during a house party I was hosting where my girlfriend clearly distracted by her mobile failed to see me stop at the doorway whilst waiting for a clear gap to cross into the kitchen to open up (the carpets were congested due to a tailback forming up to water/loo) and firmly shunted me from behind nearly causing me to spill some claret on the carpet. I appealed for witnesses but when I contacted them the next day they all claimed to have no recollection of the event. I put in a request for any video footage that may have caught the collision but sadly the the footage was too dark, blurry and unstable to provide solid proof.

in the end I had to just accept that it was another case of shidsy (sorry hun i didnt see you) and move on. but from that moment on I put my safety first and if that means jumping a red light or riding in places usually reserved for pedestrians then so be it.
:evil:

bails87

ndru wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

[Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

Yes, but please tell me how does a lack of helmet contribute to the event in the first place? Why is it that cars are not required to be equipped with pillows to reduce injuries? How is it that driving responsibly isn't social responsibility but protecting yourself is?

Riding a bike without a helmet on is better for your health that sitting at home. riding a bike whilst wearing a helmet may be better still. Therefore anyone who doesn't complete exercise at government stipulated intervals, under the supervision of a trained instructor should be made to pay for their treatment when they get stabbed by a burglar.

My god, it's perfect!

ndru

bails87 wrote:

ndru wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

[Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

Yes, but please tell me how does a lack of helmet contribute to the event in the first place? Why is it that cars are not required to be equipped with pillows to reduce injuries? How is it that driving responsibly isn't social responsibility but protecting yourself is?

Riding a bike without a helmet on is better for your health that sitting at home. riding a bike whilst wearing a helmet may be better still. Therefore anyone who doesn't complete exercise at government stipulated intervals, under the supervision of a trained instructor should be made to pay for their treatment when they get stabbed by a burglar.

My god, it's perfect!

chapeau

kelsen

hatbeard wrote:

I was the victim of a very upsetting incident during a house party I was hosting where my girlfriend clearly distracted by her mobile failed to see me stop at the doorway whilst waiting for a clear gap to cross into the kitchen to open up (the carpets were congested due to a tailback forming up to water/loo) and firmly shunted me from behind nearly causing me to spill some claret on the carpet. I appealed for witnesses but when I contacted them the next day they all claimed to have no recollection of the event. I put in a request for any video footage that may have caught the collision but sadly the the footage was too dark, blurry and unstable to provide solid proof.

It's situations like this where a helmetcam would prove really useful. You'd have to wear it really discretely though so as not to offend anyone...

wheezee

What about the dangers of second-hand passive non-helmet wearing? Do we want to traumatise other road-users by splashing our brains all over their windscreens?

greg66_tri_v2.0

hatbeard wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

don't ride between rooms in the house.

NO! I will continue to not only ride from my living room to my kitchen but I'll also happily IGNORE the red light in the hallway whilst doing so...

I was the victim of a very upsetting incident during a house party I was hosting where my girlfriend clearly distracted by her mobile failed to see me stop at the doorway whilst waiting for a clear gap to cross into the kitchen to open up (the carpets were congested due to a tailback forming up to water/loo) and firmly shunted me from behind nearly causing me to spill some claret on the carpet. I appealed for witnesses but when I contacted them the next day they all claimed to have no recollection of the event. I put in a request for any video footage that may have caught the collision but sadly the the footage was too dark, blurry and unstable to provide solid proof.

in the end I had to just accept that it was another case of shidsy (sorry hun i didnt see you) and move on. but from that moment on I put my safety first and if that means jumping a red light or riding in places usually reserved for pedestrians then so be it.
:evil:

See, what you needed there was a helmet cam. And a youtube account.

datasone

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third.

I assume full face helmets were used, as I can not see a normal helmet preventing facial injuries. Unless anyone can tell me otherwise

wgwarburton

The Beginner wrote:

...All the evidence suggests that helmet use reduces the risk of death or serious injury to cyclists involved in an accident, ...

No, it doesn't. There is contrary evidence that some injuries are increased:

...helmeted cyclists have sometimes been found to have more serious non-head injuries, such as injuries to the neck, the trunk, extremities and pelvic girdle [1] [7] [8]. It has been suggested that helmeted cyclists hit their heads more frequently than those without helmets [46].

Significantly, only studies by one team of researchers have concluded that all types of cycle helmet offer protection to all cyclists under virtually all circumstances, with and without motor vehicle involvement [9] [10]. It is this research that is most frequently cited in favour of cycle helmet effectiveness and helmet laws....

...and the CTC, commenting on the recent (2009) Transport Research Laboratory report on cycle helmets:

But CTC Campaigns and Policy Director Roger Geffen said: “After shooting down everyone else’s assumptions on cycle helmets, the report’s authors realised this left them without a pro-helmet conclusion, so they have cooked up some spurious assumptions of their own. CTC would just like to see an honest analysis of the case for and against telling cyclists to wear helmets which takes into account all the relevant issues.”

The cyclists’ organisation’s own view is that it should be left to individual “to make an informed choice about whether or not to wear a helmet,” and it opposes legislation seeking to make wearing a helmet compulsory, saying that in other countries where such laws have been introduced, the effect has been to cause a reduction in the number of people cycling.

Instead, CTC says, more people should be encouraged to cycle, thereby creating the effect of ‘Safety in Numbers’- the name of one of its campaigns. CTC claims that the report’s authors have also failed to address this point, and said that it had used the World Health Organisation’s Health Economic Assessment Tool to quantify the impact of helmet-wearing being made compulsory.

I'm not aware of any hard evidence that wearing a cycle helmet makes the rider safer- it's pretty much all assumptions, dubious statistics, small and/or selective samples and anecdotes.

Oh, yes, and there's also the minor issue, that I may have mentioned before, that

Cycling isn't actually dangerous.

Only 140 cyclists were killed in 2009, but:

3958 people died in falls... 254 from accidental stangulation, 182 choked on food

Nearly 3500 killed themselves.

179 people died from accidental alcohol poisoning.

Cycle helmets are not necessary. Making them compulsory is foolish.

Cheers,
W.

rjsterry

My parents (both vets) noticed an increase in dogs with hip dysplasia as laminate floors became popular. If you've ever seen a dog trying to corner at speed on such a floor, you'll know why.

EDIT: I took too long to type this, so it's a bit out of sequence; I was responding to JG's post about slippery floors.

Back on topic, Nobody is proposing to make it a LAW that you should wear suitable protective equipment to use, say, a hedge trimmer, or a circular saw, or a chainsaw, or... The potential to lop off an appendage is pretty high and I don't think many would argue that it's a very good idea to wear safety goggles, gloves, not wear loose clothing that could get caught and so on, but why has nobody suggested legally enforced safety equipment?

Mind you if you use power tools for work, then your employer will almost certainly insist that you do use safety equipment, so if I ride my bike to a work meeting, should my employer insist that I wear a helmet? We now also have an office Brompton for general use - perhaps there should be an office helmet to go with it (the office provides hard hats, hi-viz and boots for site visits).

Gussio

datasone wrote:

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third.

I assume full face helmets were used, as I can not see a normal helmet preventing facial injuries. Unless anyone can tell me otherwise

Around 10yrs ago a chick from work came off her bike and did a face plant with no helmet. Plenty of scuffing and couple of stitches on her chin and nose, all of which healed. She also severed a nerve above her left eye, which didn't heal. Can't move her left eyebrow now, which doesn't cause any incovenience but does make her appearance quite bizarre. Possible, but not definate, that a helmet might have prevented the latter injury. Just sharing - don't have a call either way on the debate.

kelsen

rjsterry wrote:

My parents (both vets) noticed an increase in dogs with hip dysplasia as laminate floors became popular. If you've ever seen a dog trying to corner at speed on such a floor, you'll know why.

I'm pretty sure if this dog had been wearing a helmet it would've prevented a great deal of embarrassment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BgjH_CtIA

walkingbootweather

kelsen wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

My parents (both vets) noticed an increase in dogs with hip dysplasia as laminate floors became popular. If you've ever seen a dog trying to corner at speed on such a floor, you'll know why.

I'm pretty sure if this dog had been wearing a helmet it would've prevented a great deal of embarrassment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BgjH_CtIA

Yeah that works see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyg6SB0SzlY&feature=channel

snailracer

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

rjsterry

WGWarburton wrote:

182 choked on food

Most of the 60million odd people in this country eat solid food; far fewer cycle so I'm not sure that statistic tells us anything much, :P but I agree that cycling in general is relatively safe.

Jay dubbleU

Does this mean I have to wear a helmet in bed in case I sleep walk to the kitchen and spill the blancmange ? What happens if i trip over the dog ? maybe more if more people lived on blancmange we would reduce the choking problem

Yours confused etc

hatbeard

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

much safer to ban all travel.

greg66_tri_v2.0

WGWarburton wrote:

Only 140 cyclists were killed in 2009, but:

3958 people died in falls... 254 from accidental stangulation, 182 choked on food

Nearly 3500 killed themselves.

179 people died from accidental alcohol poisoning.

Stats. Love 'em.

Not sure that they tell one that much though.

For example: take an extreme example. Say only 140 people cycled in 2009, but they were all killed.

Might then infer with confidence that cycling was quite dangerous.

OTOH, every person on the country over 14 (say, oh, 40 million?) drinks, and only 179 of them died from accidental alcohol poisoning.

So cycling would be a lot more dangerous than drinking.

Wouldn't, in this context, a more helpful set of stats be:
- number of person-miles ridden
- number of accidents involving injuries to cyclists' heads
- number of such cyclists who were wearing helmets
- relative severity of long term effect of injury on helmeted vs non-helmeted groups?

Even that's not ideal, as it assumes that the distribution of severe vs non-severe injuries is statistically identical between helmeted and non-helmeted groups, which it may not be.

greg66_tri_v2.0

hatbeard wrote:

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

much safer to ban all travel.

Bollocks to that! I'm not sitting indoors waiting for a plane/comet/satellite to fall on my house. I want to be out, running around, ready to dodge falling objects.

Clearly BAN = Death Sentence!

W1

Greg66 wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

much safer to ban all travel.

Bollocks to that! I'm not sitting indoors waiting for a plane/comet/satellite to fall on my house. I want to be out, running around, ready to dodge falling objects.

Clearly BAN = Death Sentence!

Ban bans?

hatbeard

perhaps we should ban all movement and put everything into stasis.

just think, no more aging, no death what's not to like. the only downside is it will probably mean we never get out of the recession.

greg66_tri_v2.0

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

much safer to ban all travel.

Bollocks to that! I'm not sitting indoors waiting for a plane/comet/satellite to fall on my house. I want to be out, running around, ready to dodge falling objects.

Clearly BAN = Death Sentence!

Ban bans?

Whup! Whup! Whup!

PARADOX ALERT!