It's official: Bike helmets are useless (oh no, not again!)
Comments
-
Exactly, and statistics can be similarly distorted to 'prove' whatever viewpoint you are trying to put across.Surely one of the worst damned lies on an internet forum is to quote someone with vast chunks removed so as to completely distort the argument they were making?
For the record I usually wear a helmet when riding to work or out for a ride. However, if I'm popping to the shops on the hack with a basket on the front I don't tend to wear a helmet. I'm not against helmets, I'm very much against legislation though.0 -
Taxes on cigarettes have increased significantly in Western Australia in recent years, and tobacco prices have rised from about $0.18/kg in 1992 to around $0.48 per kg in 2014. Over the same period, cycling numbers (normalised for population) have dropped by around 2/3*.
*according to an impartial website0 -
Is that because helmets have been show to be ineffective at high speeds?[quote="fnb1
......strike self (important that impact is of sufficient force to replicate low speed fall from upright position against pavement or trail etc) ......
I cycle faster than 13 mph.
My primary method for avoiding head injuries is simply not falling off my bike.[/quote]
You can try it replicating impact from a high speed fall, but it is unlikely you will survive the 2nd part of the test, hence not recommended :-) (tho you may survive the first part of the test )fay ce que voudres0 -
Is that because helmets have been show to be ineffective at high speeds?[quote="fnb1
......strike self (important that impact is of sufficient force to replicate low speed fall from upright position against pavement or trail etc) ......
I cycle faster than 13 mph.
My primary method for avoiding head injuries is simply not falling off my bike.
You can try it replicating impact from a high speed fall, but it is unlikely you will survive the 2nd part of the test, hence not recommended :-) (tho you may survive the first part of the test )[/quote]
Do try to read the whole post.
My last sentence was the most relevant.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
so very sorry :-( I take it for granted that we all try so very hard not to fall off our bikes, some have more success than others, still happens tho, even to the most skilled and risk averse riders.
Anyway, this is t' internet forum world, it is customary to only reply to part of a post :-)fay ce que voudres0 -
Oh dear, oh dear. This was originally in Cake Stop but got shifted. If it wasn't for the fact that this thread is still comical, I would not have posted again.
European Cycle helmets are tested up to 14 mph and the American ANSI standards, 18 mph.
There is a physiological effect of an impact on the skull. Where an impact to the head without a helmet occurs, the blow is localised. The skull has a very good way of dealing with the impact with certain physical and chemical responses.
When a helmet is present, the impact is spread over the whole head - rather like a boxers punch and can make the brain shift inside the skull so the effect of impact is no longer local.
A helmet is only going to save you from grazes and minor contusion. If the impact is over 14 mph/18 mph respectively, you are not benefiting from the helmet. A car hits you at 40mph and your chances of survival are minimal.
Wear a helmet only because of the event of minor injury or where you end up in court after an accident and the court says that by wearing a helmet, using lights, wearing bright clothing, you have taken all reasonable steps to prevent injury!seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You've forgotten the most important reason. To give the EPO a bit of peace of mind so you don't get nagged to death.Wear a helmet only because of the event of minor injury or where you end up in court after an accident and the court says that by wearing a helmet, using lights, wearing bright clothing, you have taken all reasonable steps to prevent injury!
Clearly I'm carrying on in the vane of only replying to part of a post.0 -
Finally!You've forgotten the most important reason. To give the EPO a bit of peace of mind so you don't get nagged to death.
Someone has come up with a definitive reason.
Was there anything else in the post?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What I've never really understood about the helmet debate is why the insistence on 18mph being the absolute cut off for effectiveness? This presumes that one's head will, in the event of an accident at some higher speed, strike an object at the speed of travel. In case of a glancing blow, or if your head is not the first thing to come into contact with the ground/car/lamp post, this need not be the case.
I'd also argue against a helmet ceasing to be of use above its rated speed. Why wouldn't a helmet serve to spread out the time and area over which the energy is dissipated, at higher speeds? For sure, it might not be enough, but I'd rather take my chances wearing one.
But for the avoidance of doubt, its a personal choice and should stay that way.0 -
That would be because above 18 mph a motor cycle rated helmet is required to be truly effective.
Anyone want to go down that road?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That would be because above 18 mph a motor cycle rated helmet is required to be truly effective.
Anyone want to go down that road?
Nah, too many potholes.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Might be safer wearing a helmet then.That would be because above 18 mph a motor cycle rated helmet is required to be truly effective.
Anyone want to go down that road?
Nah, too many potholes.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I choose life.http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/10/07/what-are-the-benefits-of-bicycle-helmets/
Please take advantage of the links to peer reviewed papers.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Where an impact to the head without a helmet occurs, the blow is localised. The skull has a very good way of dealing with the impact with certain physical and chemical responses.
It's so fortunate we have such a medical genius in this discussion. :?
An excellent own goal, well done.0 -
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/10/07/what-are-the-benefits-of-bicycle-helmets/
Please take advantage of the links to peer reviewed papers.
Hold on, that isn't a .edu or a .org. Must be rubbish ...Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.0 -
Where an impact to the head without a helmet occurs, the blow is localised. The skull has a very good way of dealing with the impact with certain physical and chemical responses.
It's so fortunate we have such a medical genius in this discussion. :?
An excellent own goal, well done.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. A minor blow without a helmet causes a natural reaction to counteract it, local to the point of impact. A minor blow with a helmet can spread the shock over the whole head, which is much much worse, similar to the effect boxer's get after years of continually being punched, hence the term "punch drunk". Punch drunk is an effect where the fluid and membrane in the skull is compromised and no longer suspends the brain in the fluid inside the skull. Their brains literally float.
A cyclist isn't continually receiving impacts but the effect of spreading an impact is physiologically un-natural. Shaking the brain inside the head by spreading the impact is worse than a localised blow.
However, that evidence is only theoretical.
Now this evidence is empirical :roll: :
How do we know that as there are more cyclists on the road, other road users are now more aware of cyclists?
How do we know that cyclists wearing helmets have had blows with no apparent injury and don't bother going to casualty, suffer a serious headache for a few days and then think nothing of it?
If I get hit by a car at 30mph + and my head is the first to make contact, no cycle helmet in the world is going to save me. If I fall off round a bend 'cos I hit gravel, a helmet may save me from grazing my head.
One is a statement about saving your life and the other is about saving you from some head abrasions. If you think that by wearing a helmet, your life could potentially be saved, you are wrong. Helmets are not tested for impacts above 14 mph - the sort of impact that would most likely kill or permanently damage your cognitive ability.
Cyclist need to make that differentiation.
I wear a helmet because of the potential to save me from head abrasions but I do not wear a helmet because I think that if the No.13 bus hits me at a particular speed, it will save my life - it won't and any cyclist who thinks it may, is wrong.
Cycle helmets should really give protection to at least 35mph, but technology has to come a long way before we can wear one that is practical...in the meanwhile, we can keep this thread going add nauseum.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Don't forget the internal coup and contra coup injuriesPostby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Where an impact to the head without a helmet occurs, the blow is localised. The skull has a very good way of dealing with the impact with certain physical and chemical responses.
It's so fortunate we have such a medical genius in this discussion. :?
An excellent own goal, well done.
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather my bare head was bouncing down the road at 20mph than with a helmet on. The skull will sort itself out with a bit of magic.0 -
Where an impact to the head without a helmet occurs, the blow is localised. The skull has a very good way of dealing with the impact with certain physical and chemical responses.
It's so fortunate we have such a medical genius in this discussion. :?
An excellent own goal, well done.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. A minor blow without a helmet causes a natural reaction to counteract it, local to the point of impact. A minor blow with a helmet can spread the shock over the whole head, which is much much worse, similar to the effect boxer's get after years of continually being punched, hence the term "punch drunk". Punch drunk is an effect where the fluid and membrane in the skull is compromised and no longer suspends the brain in the fluid inside the skull. Their brains literally float.
A cyclist isn't continually receiving impacts but the effect of spreading an impact is physiologically un-natural. Shaking the brain inside the head by spreading the impact is worse than a localised blow.
However, that evidence is only theoretical. .
Strange how amateur boxers wear headgear to cushion and spread the impact of punches. Why aren't they all punch drunk before they ever turn pro?0 -
After listening to a few of them being interviewed, I am not so sure.Strange how amateur boxers wear headgear to cushion and spread the impact of punches. Why aren't they all punch drunk before they ever turn pro?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Where an impact to the head without a helmet occurs, the blow is localised. The skull has a very good way of dealing with the impact with certain physical and chemical responses.
It's so fortunate we have such a medical genius in this discussion. :?
An excellent own goal, well done.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. A minor blow without a helmet causes a natural reaction to counteract it, local to the point of impact. A minor blow with a helmet can spread the shock over the whole head, which is much much worse, similar to the effect boxer's get after years of continually being punched, hence the term "punch drunk". Punch drunk is an effect where the fluid and membrane in the skull is compromised and no longer suspends the brain in the fluid inside the skull. Their brains literally float.
A cyclist isn't continually receiving impacts but the effect of spreading an impact is physiologically un-natural. Shaking the brain inside the head by spreading the impact is worse than a localised blow.
However, that evidence is only theoretical.
Theoretical? Really? You know, I'd never have guessed.
Someone pass this man a large deep-hole digging implement....0 -
Are we just talking cerebrum/cerebellum injuries or also taking into account mid/pons/medulla etc?Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
From:
http://road.cc/content/news/62272-which-stirs-helmet-debate-product-test
"There have been plenty of reports to support the use of cycle helmets spanning the last two decades. But an international review of the evidence gathered by the UK Department for Transport in 2009 concluded there was no reliable evidence that helmets resulted in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists."
Also from:
http://road.cc/content/news/34527-cycle-helmets-dont-reduce-head-injury-risk-much-its-thought-claims-new-analysis
"In New Zealand, where bicycle helmets are compulsory, the findings were reported by the NZ Herald, which adds that Dr Elvik also argues that an analysis of several studies published recently shows there was “no net effect” through sporting a helmet once injuries to the head, face and neck were grouped together, because helmets increase the risk of the latter."
From:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/helmets-and-james-cracknells-brain/
So given the nature and cause of Cracknell’s injury, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for his claim that his helmet ‘saved his life’. His helmet split, and failed, and did not protect his brain from the acceleration that damaged it. This is not the fault of the helmet. They are – quite reasonably – not designed to protect a human head from these kinds of impacts.
The question is why Cracknell is choosing to argue that it did – and indeed using his incident as a basis for arguing that we should persuade our friends and family to always ‘protect their heads’, rather than campaigning to keep fast heavy objects away from those heads.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Funny how I wear a helmet for x and y reasons previously stated and yet the pro-helmet brigade are still having a go!! How ironic.
Using statistical information has pitfalls. It can only be used as a rough guide as there are so many other parameters that may skew any of them. Logic and reason is insufficient to provide a counter argument?
People are bought by figures. An example: Using an analogue recording device, I say "...this alternator is producing 12.5 volts" to which the digital user says "oh no it's not, it is producing 13.586 volts" as if the fact that the digital multi meter is supposedly correct to 3 decimal points and it says 13.586 on the display, so it must be. In engineering, we know that analogue measuring devices can be far more accurate and reliable.
All I am doing is presenting the argument that helmets are not wonderful contraptions that may save your life.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
His helmet split, and failed, and did not protect his brain from the acceleration that damaged it. This is not the fault of the helmet. They are – quite reasonably – not designed to protect a human head from these kinds of impacts.
This sort of thing annoys me. The reasoning is that because the helmet split, it didn't do any good. This is simply erroneous. The split helmet is evidence that it sustained an imact and absorbed some energy.
Was it enough to save his life? Would he have a different prognosis if he hadn't been wearing it? Who knows - there's no way to conduct the other half of the experiment, is there?
But BOTH sides of this argument are guilty of adding two and two to make five, they really are.0 -
All I am doing is presenting the argument that helmets are not wonderful contraptions that may save your life.
before you bail out I have to point out this sentence.
Surely that is an oxymoron? The use of 'may' there makes it somewhat misleading, unless that was deliberate?
The whole argument is that they may save your life (just as equally, they may not), but actually no one really knows as the ones who have lived probably don't want to relive the experience with/without a helmet and the ones that didn't are, well, dead?
If you restated that with the fact that "they are not wonderful contraptions that will save your life", then I don't think anyone would disagree with that.0 -
I think you can go further than that. They WILL save your life or reduce head injury under certain circumstances. Whether those circumstances are sufficiently likely to merit their use, is an entirely separate question, and in my view an entirely personal judgement.All I am doing is presenting the argument that helmets are not wonderful contraptions that may save your life.
before you bail out I have to point out this sentence.
Surely that is an oxymoron? The use of 'may' there makes it somewhat misleading, unless that was deliberate?
The whole argument is that they may save your life (just as equally, they may not), but actually no one really knows as the ones who have lived probably don't want to relive the experience with/without a helmet and the ones that didn't are, well, dead?
If you restated that with the fact that "they are not wonderful contraptions that will save your life", then I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
My main reason for using a cycle helmet is because it doesn't bother me and so I might as well.
In addition, if I don't wear one, my hair ends up looking like this -
0 -
All I am doing is presenting the argument that helmets are not wonderful contraptions that may save your life.
before...dead?
If you restated that with the fact that "they are not wonderful contraptions that will save your life", then I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Nit picking. (more difficult with helmet on)
At no point have I said that you should or should not wear a helmet. It has been said before - it's personal choice, I have no qualms about people who choose not to and equally those who do.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Therein lies the rub.At no point have I said that you should or should not wear a helmet. It has been said before - it's personal choice, I have no qualms about people who choose not to and equally those who do.
Those who advocate the wearing of helmets certainly are vocal towards those who do not. Downright rude at times as well.
I am at a loss as to why it troubles them so.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Therein lies the rub.At no point have I said that you should or should not wear a helmet. It has been said before - it's personal choice, I have no qualms about people who choose not to and equally those who do.
Those who advocate the wearing of helmets certainly are vocal towards those who do not. Downright rude at times as well.
I am at a loss as to why it troubles them so.
The Yooks like their bread butter side up but on the other side of the wall, the Zooks like their bread butter side down...
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
