Can you Justify wearing a Helmet (TAKE 2)

mouth

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

Long Time Lurker wrote:

I'm pretty sure I didn't emerge from the womb wearing a helmet

I was born without clothes but I seem to wear them most days. Am I wrong? Perhaps I should stop. Also, we're (humans) herbivores by nature, but I do like a good steak.

DrLex

Mouth wrote:

[...] Also, we're (humans) herbivores by nature [...]

Dentition says otherwise, unless you've only got molars in yours.

(Keeping out of helmet fraças)

rick_chasey

OK guys.

To make the rules of engagement clear, since they get hazy in helmet debates.

#1.Keep the arguments relating to helmets (ish). Hilarious off topic is always allowed.

#2. No personal insults please - however exasperated you are. If you're feeling the rage step away from the keyboard .

Now, as you were.

Cycloslalomeur

Mouth wrote:

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

Long Time Lurker wrote:

I'm pretty sure I didn't emerge from the womb wearing a helmet

I was born without clothes but I seem to wear them most days. Am I wrong? Perhaps I should stop. Also, we're (humans) herbivores by nature, but I do like a good steak.

Well you know there are people who would say that you are wrong. Perhaps migrating to the British Isles was a bad idea in the first place. Very little need for clothing back in the Rift Valley. I thought humans were omnivores though.

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

Could you please provide proof that there is no proof? I'm anti-compulsion, not anti-helmet. The two are more often than not equated but there is a world of difference between them. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody who would claim that you'd be an idiot for wearing one yet I'm often called that and worse by the omnipresent helmet brigade.

Risk compensation aside, on an individual level helmets make little difference either way but in aggregate the public health impact of compulsion does not make for pleasant viewing as seen in Australia. This is one of the main reasons countries like Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands have rejected compulsion.

The dedicated boards on Cyclechat and CTC are plentiful resources with regard to studies.

My freedom not to wear one is at threat, helmet-wearers' freedom to wear one is not.

Eh? Well, if there is proof, none of it has found its way onto here in the hundreds of pages of debate on this topic so perhaps people aren't trying hard enough. I'm not about to set about trying to prove the absence of something. Not a single study has any meaningful outcome that I've seen. Often there's no control, poor data collection or is far too confounded to mean anything to anyone.

I'm in the 99.8% who is anti-compulsion.

Cycloslalomeur

It may well be that people aren't trying hard enough. If you're referring to case-control studies then yes there are many with fundamentally flawed methodologies like the infamous 88 per cent claim that just refuses to go away. But studies that look into injury rates before and after compulsion are more consistent, though obviously not without their own share of problems.

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of anecdotes featuring claims that a helmet made an injury worse. I think the latest one was posted in that Cyclechat Metro article thread. Debates over Cracknell's accident saw the "my helmet saved my life" refrain turned on its head as the photographs appeared to show that not only did his helmet fail the lorry's door mirror may have delivered only a glancing blow had he not worn a helmet that obviously made his head bigger. Now I am not in any way suggesting these anecdotes are evidence. I'm just responding to the claim that there are no "my helmet nearly killed me/them" anecdotes out there.

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

I'm just responding to the claim that there are no "my helmet nearly killed me/them" anecdotes out there.

Honestly - if you aren't going to read what I write but respond to what you think (or want to believe) you are reading, it's no wonder you're "often called that and worse".

Contrast what you wrote with what I actually said

meanredspider wrote:

I haven't yet come across anybody claiming with anecdotal evidence that their helmet hurt them

See? I didn't claim there are none, I've just never seen any (until, supposedly, today)(though I'm not sold on the "head bigger" argument)(....and helmets are supposed to fail too - that's how they work).

Anyhow - I'm checking out of this thread because there's absolutely nothing new to move a deadlocked & pointless discussion forward.

ETA - he's obviously still in no doubt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu4QzAIayTU

Underscore

meanredspider wrote:

(....and helmets are supposed to fail too - that's how they work)

OK, I've kept out of this until now - being broadly helmet-agnostic and anti-compulsion - but I can't help myself from correcting this sort of misunderstanding. If a helmet has failed (i.e. split), it has *not* done its job. Helmets work by absorbing energy through crushing. If a helmet splits, very little energy is absorbed - in some cases, possibly not enough to compensate for the greater kinetic energy involved simply due to the helmet being there in the first place. Helmets may fail, amongst other reasons, if subject to an impact for which it was not designed or if it does not fit, or is not adjusted, correctly.

Right, that's all. Carry on.

_

meanredspider

Underscore wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

(....and helmets are supposed to fail too - that's how they work)

OK, I've kept out of this until now - being broadly helmet-agnostic and anti-compulsion - but I can't help myself from correcting this sort of misunderstanding. If a helmet has failed (i.e. split), it has *not* done its job. Helmets work by absorbing energy through crushing. If a helmet splits, very little energy is absorbed - in some cases, possibly not enough to compensate for the greater kinetic energy involved simply due to the helmet being there in the first place. Helmets may fail, amongst other reasons, if subject to an impact for which it was not designed or if it does not fit, or is not adjusted, correctly.

Right, that's all. Carry on.

_

Just back to clarify on this point - Absolutely, though crushing is also a form of "failure" (the helmet becomes unusable after this point) and the mechanism is often for the material to crush until it can support no more deformation and then it splits in a secondary "failure". That splitting, in itself, does absorb more energy. In Cracknell's case, I have no doubt that the design margin of the helmet was exceeded but he certainly believes (and I'm guessing it has been looked at more closely than the average punter's lid on here) that the energy absorbed saved him from worse injury.

Cycloslalomeur

You're right Meanredspider, I misquoted you. Please accept my apology. Please also note what the moderator posted regarding the rules of engagement. For you to say you're not surprised that I get called names is bordering on an ad hominem attack.

If memory serves Cracknell's helmet failed, that is, split without compressing. Now Cracknell and the medics who treated him may believe this that and the other but their views are completely irrelevant. Also, Cracknell has failed to declare a conflict of interest.

How are you not sold on the "head bigger" argument?

In the other anecdote a crash survivor quoted his doctors as saying that his helmet caused severe and permanent torsional injuries by snagging (unlike the helmet hair and scalp tear away allowing the skull to slide along a surface). Again, not relevant as doctors are not trained to assess impact dynamics, they just patch you up.

corshamjim

Given that Cracknell was the one who actually sustained the injury, I would say his opinion is highly relevant!

Cycloslalomeur

No, he's just another bloke with an anecdote. If he had some training in the field of impact mechanics he would say that his opinions are irrelevant. I've been in an accident with a motor vehicle too, should researchers listen to me as well?

shouldbeinbed

I had fish fingers for my tea & I'm watching the football on ITV.

*as useful a contribution as any other to this futile thread of statements of unshakeable personal dogma*

roger_merriman

shouldbeinbed wrote:

I had fish fingers for my tea & I'm watching the football on ITV.

*as useful a contribution as any other to this futile thread of statements of unshakeable personal dogma*

well yes I'm fairly sure that helmets provide for long arguments on the internet every thing else i'm highly cynical of.

if you want to wear one, do so. if you don't don't.

you'll not find any evidence to lean your faith on though.

Nick Cod

Yes. I simply ask myself would I let my young daughter ride her bike without a helmet, no. And I'm not being fair to my family if I don't take steps towards minimising risk when go out and ride. My helmet also has a sticker just inside with emergency contact details if worst comes to the worst.

I appreciate that even if you wear a helmet you can still get knocked off the bike and killed but you're taking precautions to ensure if you do come off and bang your head you don't take the full force of the impact.

Simples

Cycloslalomeur

Again, let's put helmet efficacy and risk compensation etc aside for a moment. Sorry about the repetition, but surely any effort to minimise risk must be applied across the board, hence walking, motoring, gardening and basement/loft occupant helmets become a no-brainer considering that the head injury rates of said activities are greater than that of cycling is. The absence of walking helmet campaigns speaks volumes about the determination in countries governed by motorists to portray cycling as a dangerous activity.

Helmet or no helmet, it's a good idea to keep some form of identification on one's person whether cycling or walking. If it's a sticker it doesn't have to be inside a helmet. Kiddy clothes have address labels, there are dogtags and in some countries it's the law on pain of a massive fine to carry an ID card.

symo

I think the only way to resolve this is to create a roadway system with cameras everywhere that allows normal traffic to interact with a sample of 1000 cyclists (500 helmeted 500 not) over the course of 5 years. The cyclists would ride the experiment area for this period but the cars would be allowed in an out of the area. Then at the end of the 5 years we would see what injuries occurred amongst both groups.

Cracknell made the mistake of crashing in non laboratory conditions.

Personally I wear one, I ride a lot on my own and hopefully the helmet would give me the ability to be conscious enough to dial an ambulance in the case of a hit and run.

I also don't believe in God, but no-one has brought that into this argument yet and I thought 'Best get in early there'.

daxplusplus

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

The absence of walking helmet campaigns speaks volumes about the determination in countries governed by motorists to portray cycling as a dangerous activity.

That's hilarious .. keep 'em coming.

Underscore

symo wrote:

Personally I wear one, I ride a lot on my own and hopefully the helmet would give me the ability to be conscious enough to dial an ambulance in the case of a hit and run.

The one time I've had cause to actually "use" a helmet, I was riding alone (on an off-road section of my then commute) and still ended up unconscious for ~15 minutes. When I woke up, I phoned my wife and said "I think that I've come off my bike but I don't know where I am. Oh and I think that I've done something to my shoulder" (I had - a broken collar bone). This would all have been bad enough but my wife was 38 weeks pregnant with our second child at the time! Fortunately a chap taking his morning constitutional soon came along, explained where I was and took me to the nearest road so my wife could take me to A&E.

When we had our third child, I was prohibited from going off-road for the last month before D-day!

_

P.S. And, before anyone uses this as "proof" of anything, of all the times I've fallen off a bike, the only time I've hit my head was when wearing a helmet. And, so, the anecdote balance of the universe is maintained...

rolf_f

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

Again, let's put helmet efficacy and risk compensation etc aside for a moment. Sorry about the repetition, but surely any effort to minimise risk must be applied across the board, hence walking, motoring, gardening and basement/loft occupant helmets become a no-brainer considering that the head injury rates of said activities are greater than that of cycling is. The absence of walking helmet campaigns speaks volumes about the determination in countries governed by motorists to portray cycling as a dangerous activity.

This doesn't really work as an argument. Most activities that might be higher risk give you more control over the circumstances. For example, pedestrians may, in statistical terms, be of higher risk of injury than cyclists. However, I suspect a high proportion of cases where pedestrians are knocked down are due to them stepping into the road without looking. To almost eliminate the risk of being injured, as a pedestrian, by a car, all you need to do is pay a bit of attention.

On the other hand, cycling you are far more at the mercy of others and it doesn't matter a jot if you are the most careful cyclist in the world - you can still be wiped out by an idiot. To minimise the risks as a cyclist, you'd have to slow down to pedestrian pace (and that wouldn't exactly work on the road anyway). The fact is, cycling is more dangerous than walking (and if the evidence supposedly doesn't show this, it probably supports the idea that any failure to prove the value of helmets or otherwise is down to the quality of the evidence rather than the actual risk) - the two activities involve travelling across the surface of the planet - one mostly segregated from cars and slow, the other mixed in with traffic and fast. To suggest that the latter is less dangerous than the former is somewhat denying the laws of motion