Cycle helmets are pointless, says brain surgeon

andi1363

Helmets offer as much protection as a cotton glove does to your hand. Hit your thumb with a hammer. IMO and IME.

ugo.santalucia

andi1363 wrote:

Helmets offer as much protection as a cotton glove does to your hand. Hit your thumb with a hammer. IMO and IME.

You are talking nonsense... they offer the same protection as a shell of styrofoam on your thumb, obviously, as that's what they are...

Why these helmets debate always end up in a farce? :roll:

vs

Pilot Pete wrote:

When I hit black ice at about 15mph and both wheels shot out from underneath me and I fell backwards landing on my back and my head whiplashed onto the road I was able to get back up, brush myself down and continue on. Stiff neck for a day or two. Without a helmet my skull would have taken the impact and I suspect I might have been requiring the services of said brain surgeon. Another club mate fell in the same accident, two fractured vertebrae and a fractured pelvis. No head injuries even though his helmeted nut struck the ground too.

Your helmet made your head bigger and heavier, therefore, could have contributed to the whiplash, and changed the way you hit the ground

Just saying... I wear a helmet btw.

southdownswolf

madasahattersley wrote:

I've been watching this for ages and still their head has not cracked. I wonder if a helmet would have....

rickeverett

JSCL wrote:

As someone said above, Australia regrets introducing compulsory helmet laws. It has driven down participation by some 30-50% in areas.

36% of a Danish adults commute by bike to work daily, but only 3% wear helmets and they have some of the lowest cycling related accidents on the roads. It sounds daft, but the surgeon is right. Helmets are good to have because they are offering a layer of protection to the head. But, EU laws only require helmets to be tested up to an impact of only 12mph. The majority of accidents do not happen at this speed. This means that above 12mph, many helmets could be completely ineffective. I'd recommend having a read through this - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... po=22.7273 .

So whilst I think he's right to an extent, I'd probably recommend still sticking to wearing a helmet

Actually motorcycle helmets standards is 17mph from 3m. So the cycle regs are enough. Many top cycle helmets can achieve 14mph and 17mph.
This is because of the head to ground speed under gravity. Forward speed doesn't have as much effect on this real impact force. Its the speed of head falling to ground from height so those arguments are flawed.

Cycle helmets will protect you and have proven to do so.

Seen a good bid once... A teacher drops a watermelon from about 3m...smash. Drops a watermelon in a cycle helmet from 3m..nothing.
Which watermelon would you be?

dilatory

The important point that seems to have been missed here is that wearing a helmet completes the pro look too. I suppose you might look retro cool without a helmet, but only on a vintage bike.

jscl

Chris Bass wrote:

JSCL wrote:

As someone said above, Australia regrets introducing compulsory helmet laws. It has driven down participation by some 30-50% in areas

Is that a true statistic? I think more than 70 % of cyclists I see are wearing helmets already so don't think it would have the same impact here. Having said that, i don't think it should be compulsory and just down to people's choice

Yes. In Australia and New Zealand after introduction of compulsory helmet laws, the reduction % is so wide in gap because participation amongst teenagers fell far greater than that of adults after the laws were introduced.

vs

dilatory wrote:

The important point that seems to have been missed here is that wearing a helmet completes the pro look too. I suppose you might look retro cool without a helmet, but only on a vintage bike.

Given the choice you might be surprised how many pros would choose race without a helmet; many don't wear them in training.

slowbike

rickeverett wrote:

Cycle helmets may protect you and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to prove it.

FTFY

rickeverett wrote:

Seen a good bid once... A teacher drops a watermelon from about 3m...smash. Drops a watermelon in a cycle helmet from 3m..nothing.
Which watermelon would you be?

If your skull is as tough as a watermelon then fine - mines a fair bit tougher than that.

Try it with a coconut - that would be closer to being representative.

I would disagree with the brain surgeon though. Cycle helmets are not pointless, their benefits are limited and the emphasis of how much they protect you is well overstated, but rarely would you be worse off for wearing a helmet.

lakesluddite

dilatory wrote:

The important point that seems to have been missed here is that wearing a helmet completes the pro look too. I suppose you might look retro cool without a helmet, but only on a vintage bike.

...or you are a model in the Rapha catalogue...

Anonymous

Has no one considered that the neurosurgeon might be just trying to drum up some trade?

Really sick of the whole Holland comparison thing. Have you guys saying it even been there.
As Ugo said, the bikes are different, as is the infrastructure and peoples attitude to cycling/cyclists.

As for Denmark, that is a very, very different place to the UK from what I saw when last there.

jscl

Carbonator wrote:

Has no one considered that the neurosurgeon might be just trying to drum up some trade?

Really sick of the whole Holland comparison thing. Have you guys saying it even been there.
As Ugo said, the bikes are different, as is the infrastructure and peoples attitude to cycling/cyclists.

As for Denmark, that is a very, very different place to the UK from what I saw when last there.

You're right. That's why we need to change the infrastructure to make it cycling friendly.

apreading

Cyclists who wear helmets wrote:

Brain Surgeons are pointless say cyclists who wear helmets