Neurosurgeon stirs the pot...

curium

Cyclists should not bother wearing their “flimsy little helmets” as they are of no help in accidents, a leading neurosurgeon has said.
Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said he had treated many cyclists after road accidents and that the standard helmets used were not robust enough to be of use.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/ne ... 105468.ece - subscription required

greg66_tri_v2.0

Interesting.

Last weekend I was riding oop north, around Harrogate. We were coming down a sustained 2% in the wet. Not steep, but it allowed us to build 50kmh speeds fairly easily.

Two riders touched wheels. One went down. His Kask helmet was split front to back. He had pretty substantial bruising to his cheek and forehead. And he hit the road hard enough to fracture his hip socket. He has to remain immobile for three weeks.

This all unfolded 10m in front of me. How I avoided riding over him is something I still can't quite understand. But having seen him, and the state of his helmet, his face, his forehead and him generally immediately post-impact, there is no way I'd ride without a helmet. And nor would he.

It may be that the good Dr would be able to explain how my mate's skull would have done just as good a job as the helmet. And maybe he'd be able to persuade himself on an intellectual level that wearing a helmet is pointless. But for my part, having seen a high speed and serious accident at very close quarters, I'll continue to take my chances on a helmet making a difference, thanks.

rick_chasey

I'm not the biggest fan, I wear them because it's increasingly more hassle to not wear them and defend it (even on club runs), but, assuming you don't use it to attach big chunks of metal to it, I can't see how a helmet doesn't at least help.

Ah, the old helmet debate, been a while since we've had one of those.

veronese68

When I was being put under at St Georges to have my finger pinned I had a short chat with the anaesthetist, also a cyclist, about this bloke. We discussed my accident, he mentioned this bloke saying helmets were pointless. We both agreed we'd still wear one as it may help, so was worth it.

raymondo60

I wear one as it hides my bald spots

rolf_f

Avoiding the obvious debate, you have to wonder how many cyclists the good doctor has treated who were both wearing and not wearing helmets when they had their accident so that he could determine whether or not the helmet made a difference. Probably none.........

Just because you are good at repairing people doesn't mean you are good at thinking. He should stick to what he can do and not what he can't.

The Rookie

I've not yet had a major impact on my helmet, but I've had a fair few knocks that would at least have resulted in some nasty bruises and rashes without it, on that basis I'll wear one.

Of course a helmet is not a miracle worker, it can't protect against all impacts all the time, and if the impact is severe enough (input energy and duration) then the helmet may me rendered almost completely ineffective (like James Cracknellls), but I'll carry on playing the odds thanks and wearing one.

roger_merriman

It's opinion rather than fact as such, facts and proof are remarkably thin on the ground. Most of the time it's opinion for than than against taken almost as fact due to it being doctors etc. but either way it is just opinion.

Meh lovely day for ride rather than debating helmets.

Squawk

I wear one primarily because the process of growing back skin and hair will be tedious if I happen to get a deep gash after colliding with someone/thing. I suspect a small crumple zone can't hurt in a major collision, but I have no real evidence to backup whether that works.

Same goes for skiing helmets. I've never been in any kind of skiing crash (other than snowball impressions when I flip), but I have been tapped on the helmet twice by ski poles, once when some nugget forgot to detach from a wrist when getting on the lift, once with a flailing arm. Helmet meant no problem, no helmet would have meant "ouch".

Same philosophy for both really. And it gives me somewhere to mount my camera.

rjsterry

To put it in context, he was speaking at a literary festival, in relation to a novel featuring a neurosurgeon. It's not as though he has published a paper on the subject.

I would also think it's pretty obvious that as a neurosurgeon, his sample of cyclists are self-selecting for a helmet not protecting from brain injury. If the helmet was effective then he would never know about them. That said the idea that his comments are directly endangering lives is a bit of a stretch.

Cycloslalomeur

Rolf F wrote:

Avoiding the obvious debate, you have to wonder how many cyclists the good doctor has treated who were both wearing and not wearing helmets when they had their accident so that he could determine whether or not the helmet made a difference. Probably none.........

Just because you are good at repairing people doesn't mean you are good at thinking. He should stick to what he can do and not what he can't.

Hear hear. Trouble is, fundamental helmetists (as opposed to cyclists who manage to simply wear one while refraining from preaching about it) seem awfully fond of all those "without a helmet he'd be in a body bag" doctors.

Mikey23

... This from the man who has to wear a paper hat in case he falls over in the operating theatre

Kieran_Burns

Rolf F wrote:

Avoiding the obvious debate, you have to wonder how many cyclists the good doctor has treated who were both wearing and not wearing helmets when they had their accident so that he could determine whether or not the helmet made a difference. Probably none.........

Just because you are good at repairing people doesn't mean you are good at thinking. He should stick to what he can do and not what he can't.

Picking up on this point: you can very easily turn it around to ALL Doctors (physicians) who make any statement about whether or not people should wear a helmet. Physicists not Physicians should make that call.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Mikey23 wrote:

... This from the man who has to wear a paper hat in case he falls over in the operating theatre

Hahha! Like that!

Ouija

A substantial amount of brain trauma isn't caused by fracturing the skull (which helmets help to prevent) but the rapid deceleration of the skull on impact. The skull comes to a sudden stop but the soft, squishy brain continues, due to inertia and deforms against the inside of the cavity, causing ruptures and internal bleeding and wrenching of the brain stem (among other things). There's also high chance of upper spinal damage due to the sudden twisting of the neck during impact. None of which a helmet prevents in the slightest. The only real thing a helmet helps prevent are Subdural hematomas caused by fracturing of the skull itself (and can still happen even if it doesn't).

I imagine the good doctor is well aware of all this and probably played a factor in his statement.

bigmat

The novel in question was published around a decade ago, I wonder when the Dr actually made these comments? Lazy journalist rehashing a very old story?

The Rookie

Ouija wrote:

A substantial amount of brain trauma isn't caused by fracturing the skull (which helmets help to prevent) but the rapid deceleration of the skull on impact. The skull comes to a sudden stop but the soft, squishy brain continues, due to inertia and deforms against the inside of the cavity, causing ruptures and internal bleeding and wrenching of the brain stem (among other things). There's also high chance of upper spinal damage due to the sudden twisting of the neck during impact. None of which a helmet prevents in the slightest. The only real thing a helmet helps prevent are Subdural hematomas caused by fracturing of the skull itself (and can still happen even if it doesn't).

I imagine the good doctor is well aware of all this and probably played a factor in his statement.

Seeing as how the skull is likely to be slowed more progressively when warped in polystyrene than smashing into the ground directly, then it's entirely logical it will help in your above scenario actually, the fact that that is not what the test standards aim for or require is little relevant in whether it does or not.

rolf_f

BigMat wrote:

The novel in question was published around a decade ago, I wonder when the Dr actually made these comments? Lazy journalist rehashing a very old story?

The doctor has probably died of head injuries following a cycling accident five years ago!

menthel

Sounds like the kind of thing he would say without evidence. I remember him at the old Atkinson Morley when I was a medical student and he was one of the more interesting "characters" in a place full of interesting characters. Someone should tell him that its not Rocket Science.

jspash

If the Dr. would like to play a game, I'll wear a helmet and he can choose not too. Then we take turns hitting each other on the top of the head with a cricket bat. Not hard. Just a few little "love taps".

Yes, neither of us will sustain a life-changing injury, but I'll walk away smiling and he'll probably have to nurse a big purple bump for the next week.

My point being, of course a bit of foam isn't going to stop your head from being crushed by a 2 ton lorry, but there can be other benefits.

CiB

jspash wrote:

If the Dr. would like to play a game, I'll wear a helmet and he can choose not too. Then we take turns hitting each other on the top of the head with a cricket bat. Not hard. Just a few little "love taps".

The weakest argument known to man. I don't not wear a helmet because I don't mind being hit over the head with a bat, it's because I really don't expect my head to come into a contact with a bat, and if occasionally it does I'll live with it because occasionally being knocked on the head with a bat isn't a big deal ultimately.

If you'd suggested we both sit on bench for 60 years, one of us with a helmet one without and we both hope that in that time nobody pitches up a with bat and cracks us over the skull with it, you'd have had a point. But you didn't, so you don't.